ff th rani  uf 
Ififnjamin  JUV  cclbrrlrr 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 


THl  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1W  VOUC  •   BOSTON  •   CHICAGO  •  DALLAS 
ATLANTA  •   SAN  FKANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  ft  CO.,  LIIHTED 

LONDON  .  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 


THl  MACMTLLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 


A  LEAGUE 
TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 


BY 

ROBERT    GOLDSMITH 


WITH  A  SPECIAL  INTRODUCTION  BY 
PRESIDENT  A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL 


"And  therefore  thoughe  they  do  daylie  practise  and  exer- 
cise themselves  in  the  discipline  of  warre,  and  not  onelie  the 
men,  but  also  the  women  upon  certen  appointed  dales,  lest  they 
should  be  to  seke  in  the  feate  of  armes,  if  nede  should  require, 
yet  they  never  go  to  battell,  but  either  in  the  defence  of  their 
owne  countrey,  or  to  drive  out  of  their  frendes  lande  the  ene- 
mies that  have  invaded  it,  or  by  their  power  to  deliver  from  the 
yocke  and  bondage  of  tirannye  some  people,  that  be  therewith 
oppressed.  Which  thing  they  do  of  meere  pitie  and  compas- 
sion." 

—  Sis  THOMAS  MOBE. 


fork 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1917 

All  rights  reserved 


COPTBIQHT,    1917, 

BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
up  and  electrotyped.     Publiahed,  February,  1917. 


TO  MY  WIFE 
EDITH  DARROW  GOLDSMITH 


SPECIAL  INTRODUCTION 

BY 
DR.  A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL 

PRESIDENT  OF  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 


INTRODUCTION  BY  PRESIDENT  LOWELL 

IF  a  quiet  country  town  is  visited  by  a  desperado, 
or  if  a  sudden  fit  of  lawlessness  breaks  out,  so  that 
life  and  property  are  no  longer  safe,  and  there  is  no 
police  force  to  cope  with  the  situation,  the  normal 
American  procedure  is  the  formation  of  a  vigilance 
committee.  The  indifferent  are  stirred  to  action, 
and  even  men  who  abhor  violence  and  bloodshed 
are  moved  to  arm  themselves,  until  all  good  citizens 
join  in  force  to  support  the  committee,  maintain 
order,  and  prevent  breaches  of  the  public  peace. 

The  present  war ;  with  its  millions  of  young  men 
killed ;  millions  more  maimed  for  life ;  with  the  suf- 
fering of  a  still  larger  number  of  civilians,  men, 
women  and  children;  with  the  long  stretches  of 
land  devastated  as  no  land  ever  was  before;  with 
the  ferocity  and  the  cold  cruelty  which  the  contest 
has  at  times  called  forth ;  has  set  many  men  think- 
ing earnestly  and  with  a  purpose.  Advocates  of 
peace,  who  had  relied  on  the  slow  process  of  per- 


x  INTRODUCTION 

suasion  and  reason,  have  felt  the  need  of  more 
vigourous  and  speedy  methods  of  procedure;  while 
people  who  had  not  taken  the  fear  of  war  seriously 
have  been  aroused  to  the  danger  and  the  results. 
They  have  seen  that,  with  the  control  over  the  forces 
of  nature  in  these  later  days,  the  destructiveness 
of  war  is  greater  even  than  had  been  imagined; 
and  that,  with  the  organization  of  all  the  resources 
of  nations  for  the  conflict,  the  suffering  tends  to 
be  more  widespread,  the  efforts  of  whole  peoples 
more  intense,  and  the  ruthlessness  of  the  struggle 
more  pronounced. 

Men  are  feeling  that  it  is  not  enough  to  rely  upon 
the  gradual  effects  of  a  higher  morality,  and  en- 
larged sympathy  and  better  mutual  understanding 
among  the  nations;  but  that  when  this  war  comes 
to  an  end  something  must  be  done  at  once  to  pre- 
vent such  another  holocaust  of  civilisation.  The 
sight  of  peoples  who  have  reached  the  highest  point 
of  development  yet  known  destroying  one  another, 
of  mankind  destroying  itself,  would  be  absurd  if 
it  were  not  tragic.  Human  society  has  a  right  to 
protect  itself,  by  compelling,  if  need  be,  a  nation  to 
refrain  from  resorting  to  arms,  and  setting  the 
earth  afire,  before  its  grievance  has  been  brought 
before  the  bar  of  the  world;  and  perhaps  after- 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

wards  if  its  claim  is  manifestly  extortionate  and 
unjust. 

With  this  conviction  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 
was  organised  in  our  country,  and  the  plan  has 
met  with  the  approval  of  the  highest  officers  of  state 
in  the  leading  countries  of  the  world.  The  pro- 
gramme was  drawn  with  a  view  to  the  minimum 
that  would  obtain  the  object  of  restraining  war, 
and  no  attempt  was  made  to  lay  down  details  or 
provide  methods  of  procedure  which  must  be  de- 
termined by  the  representatives  of  the  nations  con- 
cerned when  they  meet  for  conference.  The  im- 
portant thing  for  an  unofficial  body  is  to  advocate 
the  principle,  not  to  draft  a  treaty. 

This  book  has  been  written  with  that  object.  The 
author,  as  the  reader  will  perceive,  is  an  idealist 
who  knows  well  the  value  of  approaching  an  ideal 
by  actual  steps  forward,  rather  than  by  dreams  of 
a  distant  future  based  upon  a  radical  change  in 
human  nature.  He  discusses  how  the  existing 
forces  have  failed  to  prevent  war,  and  why  the  prin- 
ciple of  compulsory  international  power  is  neces- 
sary and  appropriate  for  the  purpose.  He  looks  at 
the  subject  from  a  somewhat  novel  standpoint,  and 
makes  many  interesting  observations  in  the  course 
of  his  argument.  All  people  who  feel  a  real  desire 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

to  free  mankind  from  war,  who  believe  that  civilisa- 
tion is  incomplete  so  long  as  wars  like  the  present 
ravage  the  earth,  will  find  themselves  well  repaid 
in  reading  this  book. 


PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

THERE  is  little  doubt  that  war  as  an  institution 
will  be  hard  put  to  it  to  find  any  defenders  after 
this  most  stupendous  and  most  sanguinary  of  all 
wars  has  run  its  dreadful  course  to  the  bitter  end. 
We  are  no  longer  uncertain  as  to  the  attitude  of 
the  majority  of  men  and  women  the  world  over  con- 
cerning 

Yon  hideous,  grinning  thing  that  stalks 
Hidden  in  music,  like  a  queen 
That  in  a  garden  of  glory  walks. 

"  War,"  writes  Mr.  Britling  in  a  really  remark- 
able letter  to  the  father  of  his  son's  German  tutor, 
"  is  a  curtain  of  dense  black  fabric  across  all  the 
hopes  and  kindliness  of  mankind.  .  .  .  Massacres 
of  boys!  That  indeed  is  the  essence  of  modern 
war.  The  killing  off  of  the  young.  It  is  the  de- 
struction of  the  human  inheritance ;  it  is  the  spend- 
ing of  all  the  live  material  of  the  future  upon  pres- 
ent-day hate  and  greed."  l  The  German  Crown 
Prince  asks  of  his  interviewer,  "  Have  you  had  a 
chance  to  see  enough  of  this  dreadful  business? 

i  H.  G.  Wells :  Mr.  Britling  Sees  it  Through. 

xiii 


xiv          PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

Does  your  heart  already  ache?  What  a  pity,  what 
a  pity  it  is !  All  this  terrible  extinction  of  human 
life,  blasting  of  the  hope  and  expectancy  of  youth, 
the  mortgaging  of  our  energies  and  resources  far 
into  the  future !  "  * 

Now  the  only  thing  at  all  exceptional  about  these 
striking  passages  is  the  frankness  of  their  expres- 
sion. They  do  but  voice  the  sentiment  of  all  sorts 
and  conditions  of  people.  This  reaction  of  disgust 
and  horror  and  chagrin  and  mortification  is  to-day 
well-nigh  universal  and  is  the  all-sufficient  answer 
to  the  laboured  arguments  in  defence  of  war. 
Whenever  and  wherever  intelligent  people  get  to- 
gether to  talk  things  over,  a  sense  of  shame  as  well 
as  sorrow  is  voiced. 

This  was  not  always  so.  Far  from  it.  The  time 
was  when  people  looked  upon  war  as  the  routine 
business  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  population. 
The  life-work  of  many  men  was  killing  and  they 
tried  to  do  their  work  as  well  as  they  knew  how. 
If  hearts  were  broken  and  little  children  starved  to 
death,  why  that  was  all  in  the  day's  work.  Valiant 
men  had  no  time  to  bother  about  sentimental  mat- 
ters. The  heavy  heel  of  war  trampled  all  that  was 

i  Interview  with  Wm.  Bayard  Hale  in  New  York  American, 
quoted  in  Current  History  for  November,  1916. 


PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR  xv 

beautiful  into  the  bloody  mire.  Of  course,  even  in 
those  early  times,  a  few  there  were  who  uttered 
their  feeble  protests  against  the  practice  of  fight- 
ing, but  nobody  paid  any  attention  to  them.  We 
should  not  permit  ourselves  to  forget  that  war  was 
once  the  normal  condition  of  society.  Peace  was 
the  exception.  It  has  been  carefully  computed 
that  there  have  been  but  227  years  of  peace,  when  J 
no  states  or  nations  were  at  war,  in  the  3,412  years 
of  recorded  history  since  1496  B.  c.  "  We  have 
done  much,"  said  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Choate,  at  the  Sec- 
ond Hague  Conference  on  August  1, 1907,  "  to  regu- 
late war,  but  very  little  to  prevent  it.  Let  us  unite 
on  this  great  pacific  measure  [a  permanent  court 
of  arbitral  justice]  and  satisfy  the  world  that  this 
second  conference  really  intends  that  hereafter 
peace,  and  not  war,  shall  be  the  normal  condition 
of  civilised  nations"*  To-day  a  world  war  is  an 
incident  —  however  terrible  an  incident.  It  is  an 
interruption  of  the  normal  industrial  life  of  the 
nation. 

Whether  the  moral  or  the  economic  or  the  intel- 
lectual argument  against  war  is  the  most  convinc- 
ing is  an  academic  question  which  need  not  now 
detain  us.  Of  this,  however,  we  may  be  quite  sure, 

i  The  italics  are  ours. 


xvi          PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

—  the  growing  sense  of  the  relative  futility  of  all 
wars  and  the  utter  folly  of  most  wars  is  doing  more 
than  anything  else  to  set  the  majority  of  men 
against  it.  What  is  the  use  of  it  all,  is  the  ques- 
tion most  frequently  asked  by  thinking  people  the 
world  over.  Why  lay  waste  the  world,  why  fill 
the  fields  and  seas  with  unmarked  graves,  why 
break  the  hearts  of  mothers  and  wives  and  little 
children,  if  at  the  end  we  are  to  resume  the  status 
quo  ante?  There  is  little  doubt  that  if  a  plebiscite 
were  possible,  if  a  referendum  could  be  taken,  we 
should  find  that  an  overwhelming  vote  would  be 
cast  against  war.  There  would  be  a  "  landslide  " 
in  favour  not  of  peace  at  any  price,  to  be  sure,  but 
of  peace  if  possible.  No  arguments  are  needed  at 
this  late  day  to  convince  people  of  either  the  wrong 
of  war,  or  the  waste  of  war,  or  the  folly  of  war. 
Its  obscenity,  burden,  and  stupidity  are  just  about 
axiomatic.  It  has  ceased  to  be  a  problem  of  evan- 
gelism, and  has  become  a  problem  of  statesman- 
ship. We  all  know  about  the  awfulness  and  the 
insanity  of  war;  what  we  want  to  know  now  is, 
what  must  we  do  to  be  saved?  Not,  what  must  we 
think?  nor,  what  must  we  feel?  nor,  what  must  we 
dream?  but,  what  must  we  do?  We  may  not  be 
ready,  however  willing,  to  believe  that  this  is  the 


PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR          xvii 

war  that  will  end  all  wars,  and  yet  there  are  on 
every  hand  indications  that  a  portentous  change  is 
impending.  At  the  imperious  command  of  the 
Lord  of  History,  it  may  be  that  now,  at  last,  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  a  palsied  world  will  stretch  forth 
its  hand  and  perform  the  miracle  of  endeavour. 

But  there  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by  deluding 
ourselves  with  vain  hopes.  Wars  will  follow  wars, 
as  night  follows  day,  if,  when  this  war  is  over,  a 
treaty  is  signed,  the  terms  of  which  are  not  radi- 
cally different  from  the  terms  of  every  other  treaty 
of  peace  that  has  ever  been  made.  Obviously,  what 
is  wanted  is  something  new  under  the  sun  —  a  new 
kind  of  peace,  that  shall  be  in  the  first  place  gen- 
erous, in  the  second  place  genuine,  and  in  the  third 
place  guaranteed.  There  must  be  either  interna- 
tional guarantees  of  national  security  —  or  chaos. 

Perhaps  it  may  as  well  be  acknowledged  at  once 
that  no  serious  attempt  has  as  yet  been  made  to 
perpetuate  peace.  There  has  been  no  lack  of 
grandiose  "schemes"  and  magnificent  "plans," 
and  a  few  that  were  reasonable  and  practical 
though  born  into  the  world  too  soon.  But  the 
sword  of  Damocles  still  dangles  from  its  thread. 
We  have  had  the  peace  that  was  predaceous  and 
rancorous;  the  peace  that  left  wounded  pride  and 


xviii        PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

ravished  sovereignty  to  brood  and  fester  and  cor- 
rupt the  world.  We  have  had  the  peace  that  was  a 

. 

mere  makeshift,  a  truce,  an  armistice,  a  respite, — 
to  give  battling  nations  an  opportunity  to  get  their 
second  wind,  to  recoup  their  lost  fortunes,  to  re- 
cuperate their  exhausted  vitality  and  to  forge  new 
and  more  devilish  weapons.  But  we  have  not  yet 
genuinely  laboured,  as  practical  statesmen,  to  make 
peace  permanent,  or  even,  for  that  matter,  to  reduce 
the  probability  of  war,  by  establishing  the  peace  of 
justice  and  liberty  and  humanity. 

Now,  it  may  be  that  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  a  discoverable  principle  of  international  govern- 
ment that  will  certainly  preserve  the  peace  of  the 
world.  Perhaps  the  best  machinery  will  break 
down  under  the  strain.  But  it  is  too  soon  to  de- 
spond. The  simple  truth  is,  as  has  been  said  but 
will  bear  repeating,  that  up  to  the  present  —  aside 
from  the  fervent  preaching  of  the  gospel  of  peace 
and  brotherhood  —  no  genuine,  concerted,  deter- 
mined action  has  as  yet  been  taken  by  the  nations 
of  the  world  to  fulfil  the  age-old  promise  of  peace. 
The  trouble  has  been  that  the  opposition  to  war 
has  been  neither  co-ordinated  nor  organised,  nor 
has  it  had  a  clear  intellectual  policy  or  a  definite 


PKEFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR  xix 

programme  of  action.  The  sentiment  against  war 
has  too  often  been  dissipated  in  rhapsodic  visions 
of  Utopia. 

Perhaps  now  at  last,  at  "  the  end  of  the  ages," 
we  are  really  ready  for  the  great  undertaking,  not 
as  a  matter  of  political  and  moral  idealism,  but  of 
social  efficiency  and  practical  statesmanship.  Per- 
haps, now,  at  length,  after  centuries  of  high  hopes 
and  vague  dreams,  we  are  slept-out  and  willing  to 
wake-up  and  wrestle  with  the  problem.  What  is 
wanted  is  a  mutual  agreement,  a  general  treaty 
creating  a  league  of  the  civilised  nations  of  the 
world  and  pledging  them,  not  to  disarm  sine  die, 
but  to  employ  their  united  strength  to  compel 
any  recalcitrant  nation-member  to  submit  its  dis- 
pute to  an  international  court  of  arbitration  or 
council  of  conciliation  for  a  hearing  before  precipi- 
tating overt  hostilities. 

To  accomplish  this  purpose,  numerous  plans  and 
programmes  have  been  devised.  Among  them  all 
the  most  practical  appears  to  be  that  put  forth  by 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  And  what  is  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  and  what  does  it  pro- 
pose? On  June  17,  1915,  on  the  call  of  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  of  the  most  influential  and  repre- 


xx  PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

sentative  men  from  all  sections  of  the  country  about 
four  hundred  met  in  Independence  Hall,  Philadel- 
phia, and  organised  a  League  whose  reason-for-ex- 
istence  should  be  to  adopt  a  programme  of  action 
to  follow  the  present  war  which  would  look  towards 
the  possible  prevention  of  future  wars.  The  an- 
nouncement which  introduces  the  Proposals  advo- 
cated says,  "  We  believe  it  to  be  desirable  for  the 
United  States  to  join  a  league  of  nations  binding  the 
signatories  to  the  following."  Four  proposals 
were  adopted  at  the  organisation  meeting,  as  fol- 
lows: 

First:  All  justiciable  questions  arising  between 
the  signatory  powers,  not  settled  by  negotiation, 
shall,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  treaties,  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  judicial  tribunal  for  hearing  and  judg- 
ment, both  upon  the  merits  and  upon  any  issue  as 
to  its  jurisdiction  of  the  question. 

Second:  All  other  questions  arising  between  the 
signatories  and  not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall  be 
submitted  to  a  council  of  conciliation  for  hearing, 
consideration  and  recommendation. 

Third:  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use 
forthwith  both  their  economic  and  military  forces 
against  any  one  of  their  number  that  goes  to  war, 
or  commits  acts  of  hostility,  against  another  of  the 


PEEFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR    xxi 

signatories  before  any  question  arising  shall  be 
submitted  as  provided  in  the  foregoing.1 

Fourth:  Conferences  between  the  signatory 
powers  shall  be  held  from  time  to  time  to  formulate 
and  codify  rules  of  international  law,  which,  unless 
some  signatory  shall  signify  its  dissent  within  a 
stated  period,  shall  thereafter  govern  in  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Judicial  Tribunal  mentioned  in  Arti- 
cle One. 

Briefly,  it  is  proposed  that  a  league  of  nations,  in- 
cluding the  United  States,  should  be  created  at  the 
end  of  the  present  war.  Such  a  league  would  not 
constitute  an  "entangling  alliance,"  wherein  one 
group  of  nations  combine  to  protect  one  another 
against  an  opposing  group  similarly  united.  An 
invitation  to  join  the  league  would  be  extended  to 
all  civilised  and  progressive  nations.  A  general 
treaty  would  be  signed  by  the  terms  of  which  the 
member-nations  would  mutually  agree  to  submit 

i  The  following  interpretation  of  Article  3  has  been  author- 
ised by  the  Executive  Committee : 

'*  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  employ  diplomatic  and 
economic  pressure  against  any  one  of  their  number  that  threat- 
ens war  against  a  fellow  signatory  without  having  first  sub- 
mitted its  dispute  for  international  inquiry,  conciliation,  arbitra- 
tion or  judicial  hearing,  and  awaited  a  conclusion,  or  without 
having  in  good  faith  offered  so  to  submit  it.  They  shall  follow 
this  forthwith  by  the  joint  use  of  their  military  forces  against 
that  nation  if  it  actually  goes  to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility, 
against  another  of  the  signatories  before  any  question  arising 
shall  be  dealt  with  as  provided  in  the  foregoing." 


xxii         PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

for  public  hearing  any  and  all  disputes  whatever 
which  might  arise  among  them. 

To  carry  out  the  programme  it  would  become  nec- 
essary to  set  up  two  international  tribunals:  A 
Judicial  Court  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  and  de- 
ciding those  questions  that  can  be  determined  by 
the  established  and  accepted  rules  of  international 
law;  and  a  Council  of  Conciliation  for  the  purpose 
of  composing,  by  compromise,  all  other  questions 
which  come  up  that,  unless  settled,  would  be  likely 
to  lead  to  war.  The  Court,  after  preliminary  in- 
quiry, would  determine  before  which  tribunal  a 
given  case  would  go. 

In  the  event  of  any  member-nation  threatening 
war  against  any  other  member-nation,  before  first 
submitting  its  quarrel  for  public  review  and  report, 
all  the  other  nations  who  are  members  of  the 
League  would  immediately  join  in  bringing  to  bear 
both  diplomatic  and  economic  pressure  to  estop  the 
would-be  aggressor.  If,  after  this  joint  protest,  it 
persisted  with  overt  acts  of  hostility  and  actually 
commenced  war,  then  the  other  member-nations, 
with  their  combined  military  and  naval  forces, 
would  come  to  the  defence  of  the  one  attacked,  or 
perhaps,  more  strictly  speaking,  would  discipline 
the  aggressor.  This  nniilit  require  that  each  nation 


PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR        xxiii 

would  have  to  pledge  itself  to  provide  and  maintain 
its  fair  quota  of  the  necessary  military  forces ;  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  confidently  expected  that 
the  acceptance  and  operation  of  the  programme 
would  result  in  the  gradual  reduction  of  arma- 
ments,—  if  indeed  a  specific  agreement  to  reduce 
armaments  were  not  made  one  of  the  essential  terms 
treaty  creating  the  league  of  nations. 

The  forces  of  the  League  would  be  used  for  one 
purpose  only:  to  compel  submission  of  matters  in 
dispute  to  a  Court  of  Inquiry  before  any  war  was 
begun  or  persisted  in  by  any  member;  they  would 
not  be  employed  to  execute  the  judgments  of  the 
court  or  to  enforce  the  unwilling  acceptance  of 
awards.  The  appeal  to  arms  would  still  remain 
available  to  th'e  several  nations  as  a  last  resort.  It 
is  believed  that  the  prolonged  postponement,  plus 
the  public  discussion,  plus  the  justice  of  the  award, 
would  all  tend  to  ensure  its  acceptance  in  the  ma- 
jority of  cases. 

The  programme  begins  with  a  proposal  which  is 
substantially  the  same  as  the  essential  provision  in 
the  Bryan  arbitration  treaties  contracted  between 
the  United  States  and  some  thirty  nations,  viz.,  to 
submit  all  questions  for  a  public  hearing  and  to 
delay  hostilities  for  a  year  or  more.  The  pro- 


xxiv        PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

gramme  also  makes  provision  for  holding  inter- 
national conferences,  from  time  to  time,  similar  to 
those  held  at  The  Hague  in  1899  and  1907,  for  the 
purpose  of  broadening  and  clarifying  the  rules  of 
international  law,  which  shall  by  mutual  agree- 
ment, govern  in  the  decisions  of  the  International 
Court.  To  these  provisions  the  programme  adds 
what  the  lawyers  call  a  "  sanction," —  to  compel 
and  enforce  the  main  provision.  And  it  is  this 
sanction  which  really  constitutes  the  distinctive 
mark  of  the  programme. 

Needless  to  say,  it  matters  nothing,  or  less  than 
nothing,  whether  such  an  understanding  be  called 
a  league  to  enforce  peace,  a  league  to  insure  peace, 
or. a  combination  in  restraint  of  war ;  or,  indeed,  for 
that  matter,  a  federation  of  the  world,  so  long  as 
its  plain  purpose  is  to  preserve  peace  with  justice. 

This  book  is  not  primarily  addressed  to  the  ex- 
pert in  international  affairs  —  to  the  scholar  in 
diplomacy  —  but  to  the  general  reader.  For  this 
reason  the  author  has  thought  it  desirable  to  de- 
vote a  considerable  amount  of  space  to  a  pre- 
liminary study,  in  the  earlier  chapters,  of  certain 
factors  and  forces  in  modern  life,  and  has  not 
thought  it  expedient,  in  this  place,  to  elaborately 


PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR    xxv 

discuss  the  details  of  such  practical  problems  of 
international  politics  as  the  treatment  of  backward 
nations,  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  and  so  forth. 

The  author  has  had  also  to  keep  in  mind  the  fact 
that  the  volume  is  to  be  made  available  for  use  as 
a  study  book  in  churches  and  clubs  through  the  use 
of  a  special  manual  of  instructions  for  teachers  and 
group  leaders  now  in  course  of  preparation.  This 
is  the  real  reason  why  Part  I  treats  so  extensively 
of  the  several  forces  that  failed  to  prevent  the  war 
—  pacifism,  the  churches,  the  workers,  the  women, 
business,  and  diplomacy.  But  let  us  make  no  mis- 
take. If  these  failed  to  prevent  the  war  it  was  not 
wholly  because  they  were  indifferent  or  incom- 
petent. The  Israelites  were  expected  to  make 
bricks  without  straw  and  we  have  demanded  more 
than  we  had  any  right  to  expect  when  we  asked  that 
sentiment  perform  the  labours  of  organisation. 
The  only  alternative  to  international  anarchy  is  in- 
ternational government, —  however  tentative  or  im- 
perfect. 

The  will  to  peace  has  not  been  lacking,  but  the 
machinery  for  making  that  will  effective  has  been 
lacking.  It  is  precisely  because  certain  influences 
and  institutions  have  not  been  sufficient  that  we  are 


xxvi         PREFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

ready  to  turn  eagerly  to  such  practical  programmes 
to  prevent  war  as  present  themselves.  This  is  the 
subject  of  Part  II  of  this  book. 

Nor  will  it  do  for  us  to  overlook  the  very  serious 
objection  to  a  blind  dependence  upon  mere  me- 
chanical organisation,  however  perfect.  Wheels 
within  wheels  are  absolutely  essential  for  the 
smooth-running  of  international  relations;  but 
"  the  spirit  of  the  living  creature  in  the  wheels  " 
is  infinitely  more  important.  In  other  words  it  is 
rightly  contended  that  so  long  as  militarism  sits  in 
the  seats  of  the  mighty,  with  a  sword  for  a  sceptre, 
we  shall  continue  to  have  wars  till  time  shall  be  no 
more.  This  is  the  crux  of  the  situation.  There  is 
no  more  important  problem  before  the  world  to-day 
than  the  complete  discrediting  of  the  military  caste, 
the  utter  destruction  of  militarism.  Whether  tem- 
porary peace  be  attained  with  or  without  victory, 
nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  permanent  peace 
can  never  come  until  modernity  has  been  victori- 
ous over  medievalism,  until  militarism  has  been 
crushed  beyond  recovery.  This  is  the  subject  of 
Part  III  of  this  book. 


FOREWORD 

I  WISH  to  express  my  sincere  gratitude  to  several 
friends  who  have  generously  given  of  their  time  to 
read  this  book  in  manuscript.  Some  have  made 
valuable  suggestions  which  I  have  not  infrequently 
adopted.  I  wish  especially  to  thank  Mr.  William 
H.  Short,  Prof.  John  Bates  Clark,  Dr.  Talcott 
Williams,  Mr.  Walter  Lippmann,  Prof.  Walter  Yale 
Durand,  Mr.  Glenn  Frank,  Mr.  Frederick  Harris, 
Mr.  R,  R.  Lutz,  Dr.  Hugh  Black  and  Dr.  Thomas 
Blaisdell.  The  excellent  bibliographies  at  the  end 
of  the  book  were  prepared  and  contributed  by  my 
wife.  In  the  preparation  of  the  manuscript  for 
the  printer  I  have  been  ably  assisted  by  Florence 
Sexauer.  Also  I  want  to  acknowledge  my  indebted- 
ness to  Dr.  Thomas  E.  Green  for  suggesting  the 
title  for  Part  I. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

INTBODUCTION  BY  PEESIDENT  A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL  .     .  ix 

PEEFACE  BY  THE  AUTHOR xiii 

FOREWORD xxvii 

PART  I 
THE  FORCES  THAT  FAILED 

CHAPTER 

In  the  Palace  of  Night 3 

I    THE  TROUBLE  WITH  PACIFISM 5 

II    Do  CHRISTIANS   WANT   WAR?    .......  12 

III  WHERE  'WERE  THE  WORKERS? 24 

IV  WHAT  ABOUT  THE  WOMEN? 34 

V    DID  BUSINESS  HELP  OR  HINDER? 42 

VI    WHAT'S   WRONG   WITH   DIPLOMACY? 49 

PART  II 
A  PROGRAMME  TO  PREVENT  WAR 

The  Great  Divide  of  History 69 

VII    A  LEAGUE  OF  STATES 71 

VIII    A  COURT  OF  REASON 89 

IX    A  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS 105 

X    THE  AGE  OF  DISCUSSION 116 

XI    IN   RESTRAINT  OF  WAR 128 

XII    WILL   IT   WORK? 147 

PART  III 
THE  CREED  OF  MILITARISM 

XIII  MORAL  MAJESTY  OR  GUILTY  MADNESS? 189 

XIV  EARTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES? 210 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XV    DRAINING  THE  SWAMPS 231 

XVI    THE  FRONTIERS  OF  FRIENDSHIP 240 

XVII     SOULS  IN  REVOLT 248 

A  Sea  Wall  of  Democracy 257 

APPENDIX 261 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 307 

INDEX .319 


PAKT  I 
THE  FORCES  THAT  FAILED 


IN  THE  PALACE  OF  KlGRT 

In  his  allegorical  play,  THE  BLUE  BIRD,  Maurice  Maeterlinck, 
the  Belgian  poet,  describes  the  journey  of  Tyltyl  and  Mytyl  in 
their  quest  for  happiness.  After  visiting  the  Land  of  Memory 
they  go  to  the  Palace  of  Night  —  the  night  of  the  dark  ages  of 
superstition  and  ignorance.  In  their  fruitless  search  they  open 
the  doors  to  the  rooms  where  ghosts,  diseases,  and  other  things 
are  kept.  At  length  they  stand  before  the  door  behind  which 
the  Wars  are  kept.  The  Queen  warns  the  children  that  "  they 
are  more  terrible  than  ever.  .  .  .  Heaven  knows  what  would 
happen  if  one  of  them  escaped"  The  boy,  however,  opens  the 
door  on  a  little  gap  and  as  he  does  so  one  huge  and  awful  War 
pokes  its  paw  through  and  another  its  ugly  head.  "Quick! 
Quick!"  shouts  Tyltyl.  "Push  with  all  your  might.  .  .  .  They 
are  coming!  They  are  breaking  down  the  door!"  The  boy 
and  girl  (Man  and  Woman)  and  all  the  other  actors  push  until 
they  slam  the  door  in  the  faces  of  the  brutal  Wars.  Then  the 
children  pass  on  in  their  search  for  the  blue-bird  that  means 
happiness. 

But  this  is  only  drama  and  poetry  and  fiction.  What  really 
happened,  of  course,  was  very  different.  On  June  SO,  1914, 
Princeps  (not  Tyltyl)  opened  the  door  to  the  room  where  the 
Wars  were  kept.  When  he  shot  the  Austrian  Archduke  at 
Serajevo  the  door  was  opened  on  a  crack.  Then  Austria  sent 
her  demands  to  Serbia  and  the  door  was  opened  wider.  A 
month  later  Russian  forces  were  mobilised  and  Germany  sent 
her  ultimatum  which  flung  the  door  wide  open.  The  beasts 
rushed  towards  the  door  which  everybody,  when  it  was  too 
late,  tried  to  slam  shut.  The  workers  of  the  world  and  the 
women  of  the  world  put  their  shoulders  to  the  door.  Diplo- 
macy, statesmanship,  religion  and  everything  that  we  denomi- 
nate under  the  word  civilisation  hurried  to  put  their  shoulders 
to  the  door  to  prevent  the  Wars  from  coming  out.  But  it  was 
soon  evident  that  the  organised  forces  of  barbarism  were  more 
powerful  than  the  disorganised  forces  of  civilisation.  The 
Wars  broke  their  chains  and  rushed  across  the  threshold,  tear- 
ing from  its  hinges  the  massive  door,  which  fell  upon  the  broken 
bodies  of  humanity. 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE 
PEACE 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  TROUBLE  WITH  PACIFISM 

No  sooner  had  the  war  broken  out  than  a  cry  of 
derision  went  up  from  every  quarter  charging  that 
the  whole  movement  towards  peace  had  come  to 
naught  —  that  pacifism  was  a  delusion  and  a  snare. 
Wreaths  of  hypocritical  praise  were  placed  on  the 
brows  of  prophets  who  dreamed  of  a  distant  day 
of  peace.  Insincere  encomiums  were  pronounced 
upon  Isaiah  and  Micah,  upon  Kant  and  Penn,  but, 
as  soon  as  one's  back  was  turned,  these  prophets 
were  ridiculed  as  having  been  the  victims  of  va- 
grant visions.  Pacifists  were  told  to  wake  up  and 
look  about  them  upon  whole  nations  "wading  in 
slaughter."  They  were  reminded  of  the  deserted 
Peace  Palace  at  The  Hague,  and  of  treaties  held 
as  lightly  as  a  libertine  holds  his  marriage  vows. 
The  fact  was  noted  that  the  country  which  had  pro- 

5 


6    A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

duced  the  author  of  Eternal  Peace  was  one  of  the 
prime  movers  in  the  war,  while  the  country  whose 
Czar  had  assembled  the  First  Hague  Convention 
was  another  major  belligerent.  It  was  pointed 
out  that  a  century  of  propaganda,  urging  univer- 
sal peace,  had  been  like  casting  pearls  before  swine. 
Without  consulting  any  of  the  "  professional  pa- 
cifists "  or  any  of  the  institutions,  such  as  the 
church,  that  would  be  most  likely  to  counsel  re- 
straint, recourse  was  had  to  arms.  Of  course,  not 
everybody  argued  in  this  fashion,  but  certainly 
all  the  disciples  of  militarism  and  all  the  apostles 
of  force  did.  They  cynically  inferred  that  pacifism 
was  a  pretty  but  innocuous  sentiment  and  that  so 
long  as  there  were  no  vital  issues  to  be  determined 
there  could  surely  be  no  great  harm  in  subscribing 
to  the  sentiment.  And  so,  with  a  sneer,  "  practical 
people"  wished  the  pacifist  God  speed  on  his  silly 
errand. 

Two  things  may  be  said  in  reply.  The  first  is 
that  there  were  some  pacifists  who  were  not  sur- 
prised by  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  Dr.  Alfred 
Fried,1  for  one,  had  said  again  and  again  that 
such  a  war  as  this  was  certain  to  come  unless  the 

i  See  his  The  Restoration  of  Europe,  Ch.  VII,  particularly 
pp.  149  and  150. 


THE  TROUBLE  WITH  PACIFISM          7 

programme  of  prevention  he  advocated  was 
adopted.  That  is  why  he  and  others  laboured,  in 
season  and  out  of  season,  not  merely  to  spread  the 
sentiments  of  peace  but  to  construct  the  machinery 
that  might  make  the  preservation  of  peace  possi- 
ble. They  went  ahead  and  built  their  Peace  Pal- 
aces and  held  their  Hague  Conventions  and  their 
International  Congresses.  They  spared  no  efforts 
to  organise  the  opinion  of  the  world  and  to  per- 
suade the  most  influential  people  in  the  leading 
nations  to  build  on  more  substantial  foundations 
than  shifting  sand.  The  rain  descended,  the  floods 
came,  and  the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon  that  house 
till  it  fell.  Now,  they  maintain,  and  not  without 
some  justification,  that  the  collapse  came  precisely 
because  the  structure  of  society  was  not  based  on 
the  solid  rock  of  mutual  goodwill  plus  the  ma- 
chinery they  wanted  to  set  up.  It  is  not  reason- 
able to  charge  that  international  law  failed,  inas- 
much as  the  aggressor  nation  gave  international 
law  no  chance  either  to  succeed  or  fail.  It  is 
confusing  to  say  that  arbitration  failed,  inasmuch 
as  the  Central  Powers  refused  to  try  arbitration, 
even  when  it  was  suggested  by  Serbia  in  reply 
to  Austria's  demands.1  It  is  not  accurate  to  say 
i "  If  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Government  [Austria-Hungary] 


8    A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

that  conciliation  failed,  inasmuch  as  the  offers  of 
a  conference  for  the  purpose  of  coming  to  an  un- 
derstanding, made  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  in  his  tele- 
gram to  the  British  Ambassador  at  Berlin,  dated 
July  26,  1914,1  and  by  the  Czar  of  Russia  in 
the  communique  issued  on  August  2,  1914,  by  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,2  were  rejected  by  Ger- 
many.3 The  plain  truth  is  that  the  machinery  for 

are  not  satisfied  with  this  reply,  the  Servian  Government,  con- 
sidering that  it  is  not  to  the  common  interest  to  precipitate  the 
solution  of  this  question,  are  ready,  as  always,  to  accept  a 
pacific  understanding,  ...  by  referring  this  question  to  the  de- 
cision of  the  International  Tribunal  of  The  Hague." — Note  of 
July  25,  1914. 

i "  Would  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  be  disposed  to  instruct 
Ambassador  here  to  join  with  representatives  of  France,  Italy, 
and  Germany,  and  myself  to  meet  here  in  conference  immedi- 
ately for  the  purpose  of  discovering  an  issue  which  would  pre- 
vent complications?  You  should  ask  Minister  for  Foreign  Af- 
fairs whether  he  would  do  this.  If  so,  when  bringing  the  above 
suggestions  to  the  notice  of  the  Governments  to  which  they  are 
accredited,  representatives  at  Belgrade,  Vienna,  and  St.  Peters- 
burg could  be  authorised  to  request  that  all  active  military  op- 
erations should  be  suspended  pending  results  of  conference." — 
The  British  White  Paper,  No.  36. 

2  •*  The  Imperial  Government  declared  that  Russia  was  ready 
to  continue  the  pourparlers  towards  a  pacific  solution  of  the  con- 
flict, either  by  means  of  direct  negotiations  with  the  Cabinet  of 
Vienna,  or,  following  the  proposal  of  Great  Britain,  by  means  of 
a  conference  of  the  four  great  Powers  not  directly  interested, 
namely,  England,  France,  Germany,  and  Italy." — The  Russian 
Orange  Book,  No.  77. 

a  On  July  27  Sir  Edward  Goschen,  the  British  Ambassador  at 
Berlin,  telegraphed  Sir  Edward  Grey  that  the  British  proposal 
had  been  rejected  by  the  Foreign  Minister,  who  "  maintained 
that  such  a  conference  as  you  proposed  was  not  practicable." — 
The  British  White  Paper,  No.  43. 

On  July  28  Sir  Maurice  de  Bunsen,  the  British  Ambassador  at 
Vienna,  telegraphed  Sir  Edward  Grey : 

"  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  said  quietly,  but  firmly,  that 
no  discussion  could  be  accepted  on  basis  of  Serbian  note ;  that 


THE  TROUBLE  WITH  PACIFISM          9 

mobilising  peace  sentiment  and  for  adjusting  just 
such  differences  as  those  which  arose  in  July,  1914, 
was  rather  clumsy  and  inadequate  and  could  not 
be  made  to  operate  as  rapidly  as  the  machinery  of 
war,  particularly  as  one  party  to  the  controversy 
was  bent  on  having  war. 

The  other  thing  that  may  be  said  in  answer  to  the 
charge  that  pacifism  has  failed  is  that  a  certain 
type  of  pacifism,  and  what  is  usually  meant  by 
"  pacifism  "  has  failed.  Its  failure,  however,  clears 
the  ground  and  makes  room  for  saner  and  more 
practical  efforts.  There  is  no  denying  the  fact  that 
a  good  deal  of  pacifist  sentiment  was  hardly  dis- 
tinguishable from  mild-mannered  sentimentality. 
The  disciples  of  this  school  were  unquestionably 
sincere  enough  and  perhaps  were  rigorously  log- 
ical, but  they  refused  to  look  the  facts  of  life  in  the 
face  and  to  deal  with  men  and  nations  as  they 
actually  are.  They  were  naive.  Their  plans  were 
visionary  and  their  schemes  chimerical.  "  The 
peace  movement,"  writes  Ellen  Key  in  her  most 

war  would  be  declared  to-day,  and  that  well-known  pacific  char- 
acter of  Emperor,  as  well  as,  he  might  add,  his  own,  might  be 
accepted  as  a  guarantee  that  war  was  both  just  and  inevitable. 
This  was  a  matter  that  must  be  settled  directly  between  the  two 
parties  immediately  concerned.  I  said  that  you  would  hear 
with  regret  that  hostilities  could  not  be  arrested,  as  you  feared 
that  they  might  lead  to  complications  threatening  the  peace  of 
Europe."—  The  British  White  Paper,  No.  62. 


10   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

recent  book,1  "  that  has  only  appealed  to  the  emo- 
tions has  never  put  the  axe  to  the  root  of  the  prob- 
lem. ...  So  long  as  it  was  only  a  proclamation 
of  Christian  humanitarianism,  it  never  built  on  a 
foundation  of  reality."  These  pacifists  too  often 
thought  of  countries  and  statesmen  in  the  abstract, 
gave  free  rein  to  their  imaginations,  and  dreamed 
of  a  day  when  blessed  peace  would  cover  the  earth 
as  the  waters  cover  the  sea.  Their  ignorance  of 
Realpolitik  was  both  profound  and  comprehensive. 
They  evidenced  but  little  genius  for  practicality, 
and  dogmatically  refused  to  compromise.  Like 
Brand  in  Ibsen's  drama,  they  could  have  "  all  or 
nothing,"  and  because  they  could  not  have  all,  they 
were  perforce  obliged  to  take  nothing,  or,  what  is 
infinitely  worse  —  war.  Maybe  the  time  will  come, 
in  the  far  future,  when  human  nature  will  not 
merely  acknowledge  the  wrong  and  waste  and  folly 
of  war,  but  will  go  ahead  and  actually  forge  its 
swords  into  ploughshares,  remodel  its  ships  into 
schools  and  transform  its  arsenals  into  factories 
that  produce  the  goods  the  people  need.  But  that 
time  has  not  yet  come  and  we  shall  gain  nothing 
but  disappointment  by  deluding  ourselves  with  fan- 
i  War,  Peace,  and  the  Future,  pp.  122, 123. 


THE  TKOUBLE  WITH  PACIFISM        11 

tastic  visions.    It  can  hardly  help  to  speculate  on 
when,  if  ever,  this  desired  day  will  dawn. 

Because  pacifism  has  failed  in  its  endeavour  to 
prevent  war,  it  must  now,  willingly  or  involun- 
tarily, make  way  for  statesmanship,  for  a  new  kind 
of  statesmanship.  The  pressing  task  now  is  to 
make  statesmen  out  of  pacifists  and  pacifists  out 
of  statesmen.  We  shall  have  to  quit  gazing  into 
the  heavens  and  turn  our  attention  to  the  actual 
problems  that  confront  men  and  nations  in  a  real 
world.  We  shall  have  to  lay  aside  every  weight  of 
vain  visioning  and  run  with  patience  the  long  race. 
We  shall  have  to  substitute  willing  for  wishing  and 
cultivate  a  talent  for  details.  We  shall  have  to 
organise  the  world  for  peace  and  not  for  war.  We 
must  be  ready  to  reckon  with  the  facts  as  they  are, 
and  with  human  nature  as  it  is.  It  will  probably 
be  conceded  without  discussion  that  this  particu- 
lar kind  of  "pacifism,"  this  new  statesmanship, 
has  not  yet  had  a  try-out.  Whether  or  not  it  can 
succeed  in  preventing  war  is  still  unsettled  and  un- 
certain. We  shall  know  more  about  that  a  decade 
or  a  century  hence. 


CHAPTER  II 
DO  CHRISTIANS  WANT  WAR? 

A  GREAT  many  people  contend  that  this  war  has 
demonstrated  the  futility  of  Christianity,  the  im- 
potence of  all  organised  religion.  Whichever  way 
we  turn  some  one  is  ready  to  remind  us  that  if 
Christianity  stands  for  anything  at  all  it  stands  for 
peace  on  earth,  good  will  to  men.  We  are  not  per- 
mitted to  forget  for  an  hour  that  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  is  an  evangel  of 
peace ;  that  the  message  of  Jesus  was  a  challenge  to 
a  warring  world.  The  force  of  love  and  righteous- 
ness, it  is  explained,  came  into  the  world  to  dis- 
place the  force  of  Roman  arms.  Furthermore,  it  is 
pointed  out  that  this  Gospel  has  now  been  preached 
to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  world,  that  every  Eu- 
ropean nation  is  nominally  Christian,  and  that  the 
Church  numbers  its  adherents  by  the  millions  — 
more  than  twenty-four  million  Protestants  and 
more  than  thirteen  million  Roman  Catholics.  And 
yet  when  war  threatened,  the  whole  structure  went 

to  pieces  like  a  frame  house  in  San  Francisco. 

12 


DO  CHRISTIANS  WANT  WAR?          13 

That  Christianity  has  failed  has  been  whispered 
among  churchmen  in  their  cloistered  retreats,  and 
proclaimed  from  the  housetops  by  the  enemies  of 
the  Church.  It  is  one  of  those  half-truths  that  are 
more  dangerous  than  falsehoods.  The  ready  reply 
to  the  accusation  is  that  Christianity  has  not 
failed  because  Christianity  has  never  been  tried. 
As  well  say,  as  some  do,  that  democracy  has  never 
been  tried.  Of  course  both  have  been  tried  —  after 
a  fashion.  Those  who  say  that  Christianity  failed 
to  prevent  this  world  war  speak  the  unvarnished 
and  undeniable  truth.  The  Christianity  that  has 
been  tried  has  certainly  failed.  And  the  fact  of  the 
war  is  the  reproach  of  Christianity.  But  the  par- 
ticular kind  of  Christianity  that  has  been  weighed 
in  the  balance  and  found  wanting  is  nominal  and 
formal  and  mystic  Christianity :  theological,  ecclesi- 
astical and  sacerdotal  Christianity.  Some  other 
kind  of  Christianity  will  have  to  be  tried. 

The  old  kind  of  Christianity  could  not  withstand 
the  shock  of  the  earthquake.  It  did  not  succeed 
in  fireproofing  the  world  against  the  flames  of  war. 
When  certain  rulers  and  statesmen  were  deter- 
mined to  have  war  they  brushed  aside  all  the  com- 
punctions of  Christian  conscience.  Apparently 
they  were  not  only  not  bothered  by  their  own  pri- 


14   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

vate  consciences,  but  were  equally  indifferent  to 
the  moral  judgments  of  mankind.  It  is  true  that 
they  have  since  spared  no  efforts  to  win  the  good- 
will of  the  neutral  world.  When  the  tornado  of 
war  struck  a  tranquil  world  it  swept  away  the 
moral  and  social  teachings  of  Jesus.  At  any  rate 
it  did  so  far  as  their  political  application  was  con- 
cerned. Was  this  because  there  is  bound  up  in 
Christianity  no  compelling  power  to  prevent  war? 
Was  it  not  rather  the  perfect  demonstration  that, 
as  nations,  we  have  been  pretending  to  worship  a 
God  whom  we  despise,  to  believe  a  Prophet  whom 
we  ignore,  and  to  be  stirred  by  motives  which  really 
do  not  impel  us?  Of  course,  if  what  we  mean  by 
the  failure  of  Christianity  is  that  the  appeal  of 
Jesus  to  his  own  contemporaries  that  they  substi- 
tute a  vital  religion  for  a  formal  religion,  a  religion 
of  deed  for  a  religion  of  creed,  a  practical  religion 
for  a  doctrinal  religion,  has  failed  of  acceptance 
by  modern  society,  why  then,  yes,  in  that  sense, 
Christianity  has  failed.  The  war  itself  is  convinc- 
ing proof  of  that  fact.  The  formal  Christianity  of 
ritual  and  dogma  has  failed  as  it  was  bound  to  fail. 
We  are  swiftly  coming  to  realise  that  for  all  too 
many  years  and  centuries  we  have  been  taught,  and 
have  not  repudiated  the  teaching,  that  this  world  is 


DO  CHRISTIANS  WANT  WAR?          15 

a  ship  that  has  sprung  a  leak  and  is  rapidly  sinking, 
and  that  our  wisest  course  is  to  get  onto  a  raft  of 
personal  salvation  and  make  sure  of  our  individual 
escape.  But  the  conviction  is  growing  that  we  have 
emphasised  the  importance  of  personal  salvation  to 
the  neglect  of  the  redemption  of  society  —  a  con- 
travention of  the  simple  teachings  of  Jesus.  No 
attempt  is  made  to  deny  that  religion  is,  in  a  very 
profound  sense,  a  personal  matter  —  the  establish- 
ment and  maintenance  of  right  relations  between 
the  individual  and  his  Maker;  but  it  is  firmly  be- 
lieved by  many  that  to  stress  this  syllable  of  per- 
sonal salvation  in  the  word  Christianity  and  to 
slur  over  the  syllable  which  has  to  do  with  its  so- 
cial implications  is  to  make  religion  esoteric  and 
morbid.  It  may  be  that  this  explanation  of  why 
Christianity,  when  the  crisis  of  the  centuries  came, 
was  not  effective  may  be  the  true  explanation.  Per- 
haps it  is,  as  claimed,  because  the  majority  of 
preachers  have  for  generations  concentrated  upon 
the  spiritual  value  of  religion  and  have  slighted  its 
social  significance  that  the  churches  have  been  so 
comparatively  impotent  in  business,  industry,  poli- 
tics and  diplomacy.  Has  the  time  not  come,  at  last, 
to  shift  the  accent? 
A  further  explanation  sometimes  offered  for  the 


16   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

failure  of  the  churches  to  prevent  the  corning  of 
the  war  is  that  religious  teachers  have  taken  our 
minds  off  this  present  world  and  have  put  them  on 
another  —  distant  in  time  and  place.  They  have 
exhorted  us  patiently  to  suffer  the  slings  and  ar- 
rows of  outrageous  fortune  here,  and  have  confi- 
dently assured  us  that  compensation  would  come 
hereafter.  It  must  be  perfectly  obvious  that  we 
cannot  make  the  present  world  better  by  riveting 
our  attention  on  a  future  world.  As  long  as  reli- 
gion turns  men's  minds  away  from  the  pressing 
problems  of  the  present  and  spends  its  force  on  va- 
grant dreams  of  future  bliss  it  will  fail  to  redeem 
this  world  from  crime  and  misery  and  greed  and 
war.  While  there  are  still  many  thousands  of 
preachers  and  teachers  who  specialise  in  other- 
worldliness,  it  is  a  fortunate  fact  that  most  modern 
ministers  at  least  divide  their  time  between  escha- 
tology  and  sociology.  Christianity  must  come  to 
grips  with  all  the  practical  problems  of  this  life ;  it 
must  take  a  real  interest  in  searching  for  an  answer 
to  the  Immigrant  Question,  to  the  Liquor  Question, 
to  the  Labour  Question. 

Still  another  explanation  given  for  the  compara- 
tive inefficiency  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  the 
practical  problems  of  social  and  political  life  is  the 


DO  CHRISTIANS  WANT  WAR?          17 

wastage  of  its  energy  through  meaningless  competi- 
tion. There  are  in  America  no  less  than  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty-four  different  denominations  and 
sects,  most  of  them  differing  in  little  more  than 
name.  One  of  the  most  hopeful  signs  of  the  times 
is  the  movement  towards  Christian  co-operation 
through  the  old  Evangelical  Alliance  and  the  pres- 
ent Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 
America.1  If  the  churches  could  and  would  speak 
with  one  voice  and  in  no  uncertain  tones  proclaim 
their  determined  protest  against  war,  they  would  be 
heard  above  the  shouting  and  the  tumult  of  conflict. 
These  truths  have  been  burned  into  us  by  the  fires 
of  war.  Probably  now  the  simplest  way  out  would 
be  for  us  all  to  acknowledge,  without  the  piling  up 
of  apologetic  words,  that  the  kind  of  Christianity 
that  has  been  most  commonly  practised  is  impotent 
to  save  society.  Why  not  make  up  our  minds  once 
for  all  as  to  whether  or  not  we  really  want  to  make 
this  world  a  fitter  habitat  for  humanity?  And  if 
that  is  what  we  want  we  shall  have  to  transfer  our 
thoughts  and  affections  from  a  future  world  to  a 
present  world,  from  a  distant  world  to  a  world  in 
which  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being.  It 

i  For  an  excellent  review  of  the  work  of  the  Federal  Council 
see  an  Article  by  Dr.  Frederick  Lynch  in  the  Independent  for 
December  4,  1916. 


18   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

may  require  no  little  display  of  moral  courage, 
but  perhaps  now  is  as  good  a  time  as  any  for  us  to 
quit  our  rigmarole  of  dogmatism  and  ritualism  and 
get  down  to  the  actual  job  of  "  saving  the  world." 
When  the  religion  of  Jesus  shall  come  to  mean  the 
religion  of  justice  in  all  human  relations  —  between 
man  and  woman,  between  capital  and  labour,  be- 
tween citizen  and  alien,  between  nation  and  nation, 
and  between  race  and  race  —  we  shall  be  very  near 
to  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  war.  Such  a  revival 
of  religion  would  be  worth  more  to  the  world  than  a 
hundred  calculated  campaigns  of  clap-trap.  There 
ought  to  blow  over  the  Church  to-day  some  Pente- 
costal wind  that  would  stir  its  dormant  energies. 
What  else,  unless  this,  does  the  word  enthusiasm 
mean, —  the  breath  of  God  blown  on  the  smoulder- 
ing embers  of  the  heart  until  it  be  kindled  into  a 
living  flame?  It  may  be  well  to  recall  that,  para- 
doxical as  it  may  seem,  this  war  has  deepened  doubt 
at  the  same  time  that  it  has  inspired  faith.1  Pessi- 
mism and  unbelief  have  come  up  like  the  black- 
damp  of  a  coal  mine  and  have  choked  what  faith 
we  had.  It  has  been  hard  to  answer  the  questions 
of  the  sceptics.  War  makes  for  a  return  to  ma- 

i  See  Article  on  "  War  and  Religion,"  by  the  Rev.  Sidney  M. 
Berry,  Minister  of  Carr's  Lane  Church,  Birmingham,  England, 
In  Current  History  for  November,  1916. 


DO  CHRISTIANS  WANT  WAK?          19 

terialism  and  a  seeming  dependence  upon  brute 
physical  forces;  and  yet,  just  because  so  many  mil- 
lions of  men  are  daily  on  the  verge  of  death,  reli- 
gious devotion  and  a  profound  sense  of  dependence 
upon  some  Power  not  ourselves,  mightier  than  the 
powers  that  be,  is  quickened  and  strengthened. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Friends  of  progress  have  al- 
ways put  much  confidence  in  the  restraining  influ- 
ences of  culture  and  enlightenment.  Education 
has  long  been  esteemed  one  of  the  most  potent  fac- 
tors in  human  life,  and  the  school  has  been  valued 
as  one  of  the  greatest  institutions  making  for  ad- 
vance. Many  of  us  had  almost  come  to  believe 
that  ignorance  and  barbarism  were  practically  syn- 
onymous. We  thought  that  the  hope  of  the  world 
lay  in  dispelling  ignorance,  with  its  accompanying 
train  of  superstition,  intolerance,  savagery  and  cru- 
elty. When  a  great  European  war  was  predicted 
many  doubted,  saying  that  modern  education  would 
tend  to  inhibit  war,  and  that  men  who  had  sub- 
mitted themselves  to  the  refining  processes  of  cul- 
ture could  not  let  themselves  go  with  the  old  aban- 
don of  the  savage.  If  education  has  failed  at  the 
crucial  test  it  should  be  made  sun-clear  that  what 
has  failed  is  not  education,  but  mis-education  and 
partial  education.  We  have  gone  on  mumbling  the 


20   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

phrases  of  a  scholastic  learning  that  has  had  little 
or  no  vital  relation  to  the  real  world.  We  have 
trained  men's  heads  without  training  their  hearts 
and  wills,  and  then  have  wondered  why  our  educa- 
tion has  not  been  successful  in  preventing  war. 

Revolutionary  changes  are  certain  to  follow  in 
the  wake  of  this  war  —  many  of  them  changes  of 
an  unprecedented  character.  Hardly  anything  will 
continue  to  be  as  it  has  been  in  the  past.  There 
will  be  reformations  in  every  department  of  human 
life.  And  not  the  least  of  these  will  take  place 
in  the  field  of  education.  The  school  will  cease  to 
be  thought  of  as  a  place  where  scholars  may  retire 
from  the  real  world  to  contemplate  the  problems  of 
life,  and  will  become  a  vital  factor  in  the  transfor- 
mation of  society.  We  shall  have  to  surrender  the 
notion  that  education  is  the  process  of  filling  an 
empty  skull  with  the  accumulated  knowledge  of 
past  ages  and  conceive  of  it  rather  as  a  process  of 
training  human  faculties  —  the  memory,  the  judg- 
ment, the  will,  and  the  conscience.  Education  must 
be  moral  as  well  as  mental,  volitional  as  well  as  in- 
tellectual. 

To  the  Church  and  the  School,  as  forces  that 
create  and  mould  public  opinion  and  sentiment, 
must  be  added  the  Press.  Modern  newspapers 


DO  CHRISTIANS  WANT  WAE?          21 

wield  a  power  second  only  to  the  autocratic  power 
of  Old  World  States.  They  are  able  immeasurably^ 
to  advance  the  cause  of  civilisation;  they  are  capa; 
ble  of  doing  an  immense  amount  of  mischief.  It  is 
hard  to  overestimate  the  potential  influence  of  a 
free  press,  for  good  and  for  evil. 

It  is  platitudinous  to  speak  of  the  tremendous 
force  of  public  opinion.  "  There  can  be  no  doubt 
whatever/'  wrote  Havelock  Ellis  more  than  a  year 
before  the  present  war  broke  out,1  "  that  during 
recent  years,  and  especially  in  the  more  democratic 
countries,  an  international  consensus  of  public 
opinion  has  gradually  grown  up,  making  itself  the 
voice,  like  a  Greek  chorus,  of  an  abstract  justice. 
...  A  popular  international  voice  generously  pro- 
nouncing itself  in  favour  of  justice,  and  resonantly 
condemning  any  government  which  clashes  against 
justice,  is  now  a  factor  of  the  international  situa- 
tion. It  is,  moreover,  tending  to  become  a  factor 
having  a  certain  influence  on  affairs."  That  there 
is  a  latent  power  in  the  will  of  the  world  which, 
when  aroused  and  organised,  can  accomplish  mira- 
cles is  not  to  be  denied.  And  that  is  why  so  much 
confidence  had  been  placed  in  the  power  of  public 
opinion,  in  common  conscience,  to  thwart  the  de- 

i  The  Task  of  Social  Hygiene. 


22   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

signs  of  selfish  politicians  and  financiers.  "  We 
had  hoped, " —  like  the  disciples  on  the  road  to  Em- 
maus  —  that  popular  sentiment,  as  inspired  and 
cultivated  by  the  churches,  the  schools  and  the 
newspapers,  would  make  a  wholesale  war  in  this 
enlightened  age  impossible. 

The  three  familiar  arguments  against  wrar — the 
horror  of  war,  the  waste  of  war,  and  the  folly  of 
war  —  were  unanswerable.  Especially  was  it  true 
that  no  reply  could  be  made  to  the  moral  argument. 
The  shame  and  crime  of  war  we  knew  to  be  axi- 
omatic. Surely,  we  said,  nobody  needs  to  be  con- 
vinced to-day  that  war  is  essentially  and  fundamen- 
tally wrong.  Men  who  held  no  extreme  doctrines 
of  non-resistance  maintained  not  that  all  wars  are 
wrong,  but  that  all  war,  as  such,  is  wrong.  And 
there  is  a  difference,  a  vital  difference,  that  is  not 
unlike  that  between  man-slaughter  and  justifiable 
homicide.  It  was  held  that  a  war  fought  to  rid 
the  world  of  a  condition  worse  than  war  itself  is 
right,  but  that  all  other  wars  are  wrong.  The  jus- 
tification of  war  is  its  justice.  The  law  that  is 
written  on  the  human  heart  is  the  Moral  Law,  and 
that  cannot  be  abrogated  by  a  declaration  of  war. 

This  mental  and  moral  aversion  —  not  to  speak 
of  a  natural  revulsion,  detestation,  abhorrence- 


DO  CHRISTIANS  WANT  WAR?          23 

it  had  been  hoped  would  prevent  war.  Still,  in 
spite  of  everything,  the  war  came.  But  what  of 
the  future?  In  times  past  it  was  possible  wholly 
to  ignore  the  world's  sad  voice  of  discontent.  It 
will  not  much  longer  be  possible  to  continue  indif- 
ferent. The  latent  power  of  public  opinion  is  not 
going  to  remain  latent.  Its  pressure  can  already 
be  felt.  If  any  proof  of  this  were  needed,  it  could 
readily  be  found  in  the  way  that  all  the  belligerents 
have  sought  the  good  will  of  the  neutral  world. 

It  has  already  been  suggested  that  the  minds  of 
men  are  made  up  on  this  subject  of  war  and  peace. 
There  is  no  mistake  about  this  as  a  fact.  Nor  is  it 
any  snap  judgment.  They  have  taken  nearly  four 
thousand  years  to  come  to  a  decision,  and  that  de- 
cision is,  with  scarcely  a  dissenting  voice,  that  war, 
particularly  as  waged  under  modern  conditions,  is 
not  only  incredibly  horrible  but  also  incalculably 
expensive.  This  war  has  demonstrated  beyond 
doubt  that,  whatever  the  results,  direct  or  indirect, 
they  are  certain  to  be  entirely  incommensurate  with 
the  cost  in  treasure  and  suffering. 


CHAPTER  III 
WHERE  WERE  THE  WORKERS? 

NOR  are  these  the  only  forces  that  have  failed. 
Many  had  counted  on  the  workers  to  preserve  the 
peace  of  the  world.  We  were  assured  that  in  these 
latter  days  the  labourers  of  one  country  had  much 
more  in  common  with  the  labourers  of  another  coun- 
try than  they  had  with  other  groups  in  their  own 
land.  Among  the  socialists  a  group  had  grown  up 
who  called  themselves  Internationalists,  and  it  was 
argued  that  nothing  could  possibly  induce  them  to 
take  up  arms  against  their  brother  workers  in  other 
lands.  Class-consciousness  was  esteemed  more 
powerful  than  nation-consciousness,  and  it  was 
freely  claimed  that  a  new  sentiment  of  solidarity 
and  humanity  had  arrived  to  take  the  place  of  the 
old  sentiment  of  nationality  and  patriotism.  Per- 
haps the  logic  of  history  was  on  the  side  of  those 
who  thus  reasoned,  but  here,  as  so  often  happens, 
abstract  logic  broke  down  in  the  presence  of  con- 
crete life.  Inspired  and  urged  by  sentiments  that 
have  a  very  deep  rootage  in  the  human  spirit,  these 

24 


WHERE  WERE  THE  WORKERS?        25 

men,  with  or  without  compulsion,  hastened  to  an- 
swer their  country's  call  to  arms, —  to  rally  round 
the  flag.1 

But  it  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the  workers  failed 
to  prevent  the  war.  In  all  probability  we  had  no 
right  to  think  for  a  moment  that  they  would  suc- 
ceed. Doubtless  we  took  their  enthusiastic  prom- 
ises too  seriously.  We  ought  to  inquire  why  they 
failed.  There  are  three  answers.  The  first  we  have 
already  suggested.  It  is  that  there  was  a  miscalcu- 
lation as  to  the  potency  of  the  appeal  to  patriotic 
and  nationalistic  sentiment.  The  second  reply  is 
that  the  workers  were  not  organised  internation- 
ally, except  on  paper,  and  therefore  could  act  as  a 
unit  only  with  great  difficulty.  The  third  reason 
is  that  within  their  own  country  they  had  only  a 
modicum  of  political  power, —  at  any  rate  in  refer- 
ence to  foreign  affairs.  The  power  to  proclaim  or 
to  prevent  war,  to  precipitate  or  to  postpone  war, 
was  altogether  beyond  their  control.  All  they 
could  do  was  raise  their  individual  voices  of  pro- 
test ;  they  could  not  back  up  their  voices  with  their 
votes  in  any  effectual  way.  It  is  therefore  hardly 
just  to  say  that  the  workers  failed  to  prevent  this 
war.  It  is  true  enough  that  they  did  not  prevent 

i  See  Chapter  XVI,  "  The  Frontiers  of  Friendship." 


26   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

the  war,  but  that  is  only  an  indication  of  their  politi- 
cal weakness.  If  the  peace  of  the  world  is  ever  to  be 
preserved  the  political  power  of  the  workers,  who 
do  the  fighting,  must  be  greatly  enhanced. 

Fortunately  there  are  signs  and  portents  that  the 
day  is  not  distant  when  Labour's  right  to  be  heard 
in  the  determination  of  such  momentous  issues  as 
war  and  peace,  will  be  recognised  and  granted. 
For  a  mighty  change  is  impending.1  The  modern 
movement  towards  democracy,  now  temporarily 
halted,  will,  in  the  end,  be  greatly  accelerated  by 
the  war.  For  a  while,  during  the  early  months, 
the  notion  gained  credence  that  the  rapid  growth 
and  spread  of  democracy  had  so  frightened  Old 
World  rulers  that  the  war  was  precipitated  by 
them  to  stem  the  rising  tide.  Unlikely  as  this 
now  seems,  and  be  it  as  it  may,  the  ultimate  ef- 
fect of  the  wrar  will  undoubtedly  be  to  increase 
the  momentum  of  the  democratic  movement.  Stu- 
dents of  affairs  in  the  several  belligerent  nations  2 
tell  us  that  we  may  expect  radical  reforms,  economic 
and  political,  after  the  war.  Attention  is  called  to 

1  See  Article  by  H.  G.  Wells  entitled  "  As  the  World  Lives  On," 
in  the  Independent  for  January  8,  1917. 

2  See  Herbert  Bayard  Swope's  Inside  the  German  Empire, 
especially  Chapter  IV.     Also  see  Article  on  "The  Social  Revo- 
lution  in    England"   by   Arthur  Gleason   in   the  Century   for 
February,  1917. 


WHERE  WERE  THE  WORKERS?        27 

the  fact  that  because  of  the  exigencies  of  the  war's 
demands,  the  workers  in  all  the  fighting  nations 
have  been  compelled  to  co-operate  industrially  to  a 
degree  that  their  most  enthusiastic  leaders  had 
never  dared  to  suggest  before  the  war.  Enforced 
co-operation  has  been  undertaken  on  a  grand  scale, 
—  so  much  so  that  prices  and  wages  have  been 
rigidly  fixed  by  governmental  authority. 

It  is  interesting  and  important  to  observe  and 
record  what  has  been  going  on  in  Europe  since  the 
war  began.  In  practically  every  belligerent  nation, 
the  Government  has  forced  upon  industry  and  man- 
ufacture, willy-nilly,  a  sort  of  paternalistic  de- 
mocracy, a  kind  of  coerced  co-operation.  Much  of 
the  labour  of  production  and  distribution  is  being 
performed  under  direct  government  management. 
There  is  government  control,  and  sometimes  opera- 
tion of  mines,  shipping  and  railways.  Beginning 
December  1,  1916,  all  the  South  Wales  mine  fields 
came  under  the  control  of  a  committee  represent- 
ing the  British  Board  of  Trade,  the  Home  Office, 
and  the  Admiralty.  This  committee  manages  the 
mines,  determines  the  price,  decides  on  the  profits, 
and  settles  the  question  of  wages.  For  the  nonce, 
practically  all  competition  and  duplication  has 
been  eliminated.  This  mobilisation  of  labour  and 


28   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

control  of  industry  became  absolutely  necessary. 
For  no  nation,  fighting  for  its  existence,  could  af- 
ford to  indulge  in  wasteful  methods.  The  econ- 
omies brought  about  by  the  all  but  universal  sub- 
stitution of  co-operation  for  competition  meant  just 
so  much  more  money  for  the  war-chests. 

Many  insist  that  after  the  war,  having  discov- 
ered the  advantages  and  economy  of  such  industrial 
co-operation,  the  citizen-workers  will  refuse  to  re- 
turn to  the  old  manner  of  unrestricted  competition. 
They  will  argue  that  the  enormous  savings  ef- 
fected by  co-operation  have  been  spent  in  a  costly 
war  to  meet  the  urgent  needs  of  a  national  crisis. 
When  the  crisis  is  past  they  will  insist  that  there 
should  be  a  re-distribution  in  terms  of  reward. 
They  will  say  to  their  several  governments,  "  Oh, 
very  well,  we  will  tear  a  leaf  from  your  experience. 
We,  too,  believe  in  co-operation,  in  democratising 
industry,  but  with  a  difference.  Hereafter  we  will 
voluntarily  co-operate  and  save  for  ourselves  the 
usufruct  of  the  labour  of  our  own  heads  and  hands." 
It  is  an  anomaly  of  modern  times  that  while  we 
have  already  achieved  democracy,  in  no  small  meas- 
ure, in  religion,  in  education,  and  in  domestic  poli- 
tics, industry  should  still  largely  be  ruled  by  mon- 
archs  of  the  market.  When  a  degree  of  democracy, 


WHERE  WERE  THE  WORKERS?        29 

or  something  like  representative  government,  has 
been  achieved  in  industry,  there  will  be  three  parties 
that  will  share  in  its  control:  those  who  own  the 
working  capital  or  tools ;  those  who  labour  with 
head  (officers  and  managers)  or  hand  (manual  toil- 
ers) ;  and  the  general  consuming  public. 

At  length  it  seems  to  have  dawned  upon  the 
workers  that  war  does  not  inure  to  their  profit. 
They  pay  a  disproportionate  amount  of  the  total 
cost  in  life  and  treasure  and  they  get  least  for  their 
expenditure.  The  value  of  war  for  them  is  a  ficti- 
tious value.1  So  it  is  highly  probable  that  they  will 
not  hesitate  to  go  to  almost  any  lengths  to  bring 
about  the  changes  that  seem  to  them  but  just  and 
fair.  In  the  measure  that  the  workers  succeed  in 
securing  what  they  demand  they  will  be  the  stronger 
by  just  that  much.  But  even  if  they  are  not  suc- 
cessful in  bringing  about  radical  and  far-reaching 
economic  reforms,  there  is  still  the  probability, 
amounting  almost  to  a  certainty,  that  they  will  ac- 
quire new  and  greater  political  power.  The  use 
of  this  power  by  the  workers  through  their  repre- 
sentatives in  the  national  councils  would  certainly 
act  as  a  brake  upon  future  wars. 

i  See  Article  by  Alvin  S.  Johnson  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  March, 
1914,  on  "  War  and  the  Interests  of  Labour." 


30   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

The  spreading  revolt  of  the  labouring  classes 
against  war  is  an  ominous  fact.  They  are  deter- 
mined that  if  any  means  are  humanly  available  for 
preventing  the  recurrence  of  such  a  holocaust  as 
has  marked  this  age,  then  its  like  must  never  occur 
again.  These  are  the  times  that  try  men's  souls  — 
and  the  long-suffering  patience  of  the  people.  That 
patient  endurance  is  now  utterly  exhausted.  And 
because  they  are  so  firmly  convinced  that  there  is  no 
commensurate  profit  for  them  in  most  wars,  the 
great  majorities  that  go  to  make  up  the  populations 
of  the  nations  are  determined  that  their  rulers  and 
statesmen  must  discover  ways  for  preventing  fu- 
ture wars,  or  else  throw-up  their  jobs.  It  is  a  dan- 
gerous thing  to  tantalise  an  awakened  giant. 
Samson  may  be  blinded  and  oppressed,  and  shorn 
of  his  strength  for  a  time,  but  he  may  yet  pull  the 
temple  down  upon  our  heads.  The  people  will  not 
always  remain  blind,  harnessed  to  the  grist-mill. 
Old-fashioned  rulers  hold  their  sceptres  with  a 
slender  grip.  The  power  of  potentates  is  dwin- 
dling. Common  will  and  public  right  are  to  be  the 
Imperial  Rulers  of  To-morrow. 

The  worker  is  coming  into  his  own.  Perhaps, 
after  this  war,  we  shall  need  a  brand  new  appraisal 
of  greatness  and  heroism.  Our  appreciation  has 


WHEEE  WERE  THE  WORKERS?        31 

usually  been  reserved  for  the  soldier  type  of  hero. 
No  one  will  deny  that  at  his  best  the  soldier-hero 
possesses  many,  if  not  all,  the  attributes  and  vir- 
tues of  valour  and  devotion.  Too  much  cannot  be 
said  in  recognition  of  loyalty  and  courage  whenever 
and  wherever  found.  But  it  is  with  heroism  as  it  is 
with  suffering  —  it  is  too  costly  and  valuable  to 
be  wantonly  wasted.  The  Master  of  all  Moderns 
taught  us  more  than  nineteen  centuries  ago  that 
neither  greatness  nor  courage  was  confined  to  fields 
of  carnage.  Can  it  be  that  we  are  two  thou- 
sand years  behind  the  times?  Jesus  saw  far  into 
the  future  when  he  prophesied  that  the  time  would 
come  when  we  should  have  to  revise  our  estimate 
of  greatness.  He  explained  to  his  disciples 
(Matthew  20 :  25-28)  that  sooner  or  later  the  world 
would  acclaim  the  Servant  in  the  House  of  Life  as 
the  greatest  of  us  all. 

It  is  no  dispraise,  and  certainly  no  disparage- 
ment, of  the  soldier  to  say  that  he  has  played  his 
part,  and  has  usually  played  it  well,  in  the  drama 
of  history.  But  he  should  not  linger  any  longer  on 
the  stage  of  life.  His  generous  enthusiasm  and 
passionate  devotion  have  been  misdirected  and  prod- 
igally spent.  Some  day,  and  perhaps  sooner  than 
we  dare  hope,  the  valour  of  the  soldier  will  become 


32   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

the  ardour  of  the  engineer.  The  new  sceptre  of 
authority  will  be  a  lever  and  not  a  sword.  Placed 
under  this  world  of  disease  and  poverty  and  crime, 
it  will  lift  it  to  a  higher  level.  For  after  all,  as 
some  one  has  said,  the  greatest  engineering  feat  in 
history  is  to  raise  the  standard  of  living.  The  man- 
tle of  social  authority,  and  in  course  of  time  of  po- 
litical authority  as  well,  will  be  thrown  across  the 
shoulders  of  the  engineer  —  whose  business  it  is  to 
construct  and  not  destroy. 

There  is  a  reason  for  all  this.  It  is  one  of  the 
revolutionary  changes  accelerated  by  the  war.  The 
political  sovereigns  are  not  the  only  potentates 
whose  tenure  of  absolute  authority  is  precarious. 
Financial  oligarchs  are  also  tottering  to  their  fall. 
The  theory  of  the  divine  right  of  a  few  men  to  hold 
the  purse-strings  of  the  people's  credit  has  been 
torpedoed  and  sunk,  along  with  that  other  theory 
of  the  divine  right  of  a  mediaeval  monarch  to  sign 
the  death-warrant  of  six  million  men.  This  is  how 
it  has  come  about.  The  dramatic  and  critical  need 
of  the  nations  at  war  has  made  them  pass  by  all 
figure-heads  and  merely  prominent  people,  men  who 
happened  to  own  things  and  who  therefore  had  a 
financial  and  social  rating,  and  has  led  them  to 
draft  into  the  service  of  the  State,  for  all  important 


WHERE  WERE  THE  WORKERS?        33 

and  responsible  work,  the  man  that  knows  and  the 
man  that  can  get  things  done, —  the  creative 
thinker,  the  practical  scientist  and  the  political  en- 
gineer. Lord  Northcliffe  has  pointed  out  that  what 
is  happening  is  that  with  the  pressure  of  war  has 
come  the  hard  necessity  for  national  efficiency. 
This,  he  says,  is  why  prime  ministers  have  called  to 
their  councils  working  men,  business  men,  and  sci- 
entists, without  regard  to  class  or  party. 

The  war  is  certain  to  enhance  the  value  and 
prestige  of  men  of  this  stamp.  Their  stock  is 
bound  to  go  up.  The  stream  of  credit,  like  the 
river  Nile,  will  overflow  its  banks.  Bills  of  all 
sorts  will  be  enacted  to  democratise  finance  and  fa- 
cilitate credit  opportunities,  thereby  opening  the 
sluiceways  of  ambition,  enterprise  and  achieve- 
ment. Increased  credit  opportunities  for  the  com- 
mon man  will  increase  his  social  usefulness,  im- 
prove his  individual  status,  and  strengthen  his  po- 
litical control.  Gradually  the  soldier  will  make 
way  for  the  engineer  and  the  warrior  for  the 
worker. 


CHAPTER  IV 
WHAT  ABOUT  THE  WOMEN? 

NOT  so  very  different  from  the  charge  that  we  were 
misled  when  told  that  the  workers  would  prevent 
so  calamitous  a  thing  as  a  world  war,  is  the  state- 
ment that  we  were  likewise  deceived  when  induced 
to  believe  that  the  women  would  stand  united 
against  war.  It  was  clear  that  the  workers  had 
everything  to  lose  and  little  to  gain  by  fighting  the 
battles  of  their  rulers,  but  it  was  no  less  clear  that 
the  women  had  as  much,  if  not  more,  to  lose  than 
the  workers.  And  surely,  it  was  argued,  the  women 
know  the  awful  cost  of  war  in  suffering  and  sacri- 
fice. 

The  answer  to  the  sneer  that  when  we  depended 
upon  the  women  to  prevent  war  we  were  leaning 
on  a  broken  reed,  is  of  much  the  same  character  as 
that  in  reference  to  the  workers.  If  the  women 
failed  to  preserve  peace  it  was,  in  the  first  place, 
because  they  were  not  organised,  and,  in  the  second 
place,  because  they  had  practically  no  political 

34 


WHAT  ABOUT  THE  WOMEN?  35 

power  and  certainly  no  direct  vote  in  determining 
international  matters. 

But  this  condition,  too,  it  seems  altogether  likely 
will  be  changed  after  the  war.  As  with  the  work- 
ers, so  with  the  women,  they  have  been  called  upon 
to  do  unprecedented  tasks  in  the  several  fighting 
nations.  It  will  not  do  to  ignore,  nor  treat  lightly 
the  r61e  that  the  women  have  played  in  this  grim 
drama.  The  denouement  has  proved,  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt,  that  in  respects  other  than 
purely  idealistic  they  are  the  peers  of  their  broth- 
ers. With  equal  patriotism  they  have  responded 
to  the  appeal  for  sacrifice  and  service,  and  this  has 
been  as  true  of  the  princess  as  of  the  peasant. 

The  awakening  of  the  women  has  not  waited  for 
the  bugle  reveille.  The  Feminist  Movement  is  a 
part  of  the  great  democratic  movement  of  modern 
times.  The  advance  of  women,  during  the  past  few 
decades,  has  meant  that  an  ever-increasing  number 
have  protested  against  arbitrary  sex  discrimina- 
tion, against  presumptuous  masculine  despotism, 
against  domestic  drudgery,  industrial  parasitism, 
economic  dependence  and  political  disability. 

We  need  not  here  discuss  in  detail  these  several 
phases  of  the  Woman  Movement.  It  is  as  true  of 
"  feminism  "  as  it  is  of  so  many  other  reforms  of 


36   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

one  kind  and  another, —  the  war  has  put  a  stop  to 
all  direct  propaganda  and  meliorative  legislation. 
And  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  what  do  we  find  has 
actually  happened?  We  find  that  in  mobilising  the 
nations  (not  merely  the  armies)  no  arbitrary  lets 
and  hindrances  have  been  thrown  in  the  way  of 
woman's  employment  anywrhere  and  everywhere, — 
in  home,  or  shop,  or  hospital,  or  on  the  farm,  or  in 
connection  with  transportation  lines.  There  is  no 
time  for  the  idle  discussion  of  fine-spun  theories  as 
to  the  intellectual  inferiority  or  industrial  incorn- 
petency  of  women,  as  such.  Nations  engaged  in  a 
life-and-death  struggle  cannot  afford  to  discrimi- 
nate on  account  of  sex.  What  "  despotism  "  there 
is  to-day  is  military,  or  governmental  for  military 
reasons,  and  it  limits  and  controls  the  freedom  of  ac- 
tion of  all  alike.  Military  necessity  is  no  respecter 
of  persons. 

As  for  that  aspect  of  the  Woman  Movement  which 
has  concerned  itself  primarily  with  the  problem  of 
excessive  drudgery  in  the  business  of  home-making 
and  house-keeping,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  war  has 
inspired  the  invention  of  many  labour-saving  devices 
that  should  reduce  the  heart-breaking  strain  and 
tax  of  what  Arnold  Bennett  has  felicitously  called 
"  domestic  dailiness."  Also,  under  the  compulsion 


WHAT  ABOUT  THE  WOMEN?  37 

of  necessity,  many  schemes  have  been  introduced 
and  many  projects  put  into  practical  operation,  in 
the  way  of  community  washing  and  cooking  and 
serving. 

As  for  a  special  class  of  industrial  parasites,  who 
live  on  the  labour  of  others  and  feel  keenly  the 
shame  of  selfish  indulgence  and  social  futility,  this 
class  of  women  has,  at  any  rate  temporarily,  ceased 
to  exist.  A  nation  in  arms,  availing  itself  of  every 
last  resource,  material  and  human,  can  neither  af- 
ford to  feed  the  lazy  nor  tolerate  the  idle.  Few 
stories  of  the  war  are  more  thrilling  than  those 
that  tell  of  women  of  wealth  and  fashion  who,  un- 
like the  rich  young  ruler,  have  not  made  the  Great 
Refusal.1  They  have  left  all  and  taken  up  their 
cross  of  denial  and  sacrifice. 

Take  also  the  matter  of  economic  independence. 
To  be  sure,  the  fight  to  obtain  equal  pay  for  equal 
work  has  not  yet  been  won,  but  between  two  and 
three  million  additional  women  have  entered  the 
ranks  of  gainful  occupations.  In  England,  three- 
quarters  of  a  million  are  working  in  munition  fac- 
tories alone.  Can  old  prejudices  prevail  long  in 
the  face  of  these  facts?  Surely  several  steps,  not  to 

i  See  the  Report  of  Dr.  William  Graham,  Medical  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Belfast  District  Asylum,  reprinted  in  Current  His- 
tory for  November,  1916. 


38   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

say  strides,  have  been  taken  in  the  direction  of  eco- 
nomic independence.  It  does  not  seem  probable 
that  these  steps  will  be  retraced  and  that  this  ad- 
vance will  be  followed  by  retrogression. 

No  matter  what  may  be  thought  of  the  Feminist 
Movement  as  a  whole,  there  is  little  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  governments  will  refuse,  after  this  war, 
to  give  the  women  more  power  in  legislation.  The 
extension  of  the  franchise  so  as  to  include  women, 
while  not  a  foregone  conclusion,  seems  altogether 
likely.  Indeed  Denmark  and  Iceland  and  four 
provinces  of  Canada  have  already  enfranchised 
their  women  since  the  war  began  and  the  probabil- 
ity that  the  women  of  England  will  win  the  suffrage 
amounts  almost  to  a  certainty.  The  war  has  given 
the  women  an  extraordinary  opportunity  to  demon- 
strate their  equality  with  men  in  numberless  agri- 
cultural, industrial,  commercial  and  social  activi- 
ties, and  so,  by  inference,  their  equal  intelligence 
and  fitness  to  exercise  the  franchise.  It  is  not  un- 
reasonably urged  that  if  they  can  work  and  make 
guns  for -their  country  they  can  also  vote  and  make 
laws  for  their  country.  On  sentimental  grounds 
alone  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  Governments  can 
longer  deny  to  women  a  share  in  the  conduct  of  the 
affairs  of  the  nation  which  they  so  heroically  and 


WHAT  ABOUT  THE  WOMEN?  39 

devotedly  have  laboured  to  defend.  And  they  will 
be  the  more  eager  to  acquire  and  exercise  this  po- 
litical power  after  they  have  had  time  to  sit  down 
and  reckon  up  the  fearful  costs  of  the  war  to  them. 
After  the  itemised  bills  have  all  been  rendered  and 
they  have  pondered  over  the  dreadful  details,  they 
will,  more  than  ever  before,  want  to  have  a  voice  in 
those  councils  of  state  which  decide  the  momentous 
question  of  war  or  no-war.  Can  the  demand  any 
longer  be  refused  and  the  right  withheld? 

The  revolt  of  women  against  the  custom  of  war, 
as  such,  was  to  have  been  expected.  And  this,  of 
course,  is  not  to  deny  that  there  were  countless 
ardent  women,  in  all  the  belligerent  countries, 
whose  patriotic  support  has  been  whole-hearted  and 
loyal.  But  by  every  instinct  of  nature,  and  by 
every  reason  of  self-interest,  women  ought  to  be  op- 
posed to  war  root  and  branch.  If  many  of  them 
seem  unthinking  and  unpractical  in  their  opposi- 
tion, that  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world. 
The  fact  that  women  are  called  upon  to  pay  such 
heavy  taxes  in  irreparable  loss  and  inconsolable 
sorrow,  in  privation  and  cruelty,  goes  far  to  explain 
why  women,  in  the  main,  are  such  uncompromising 
foes  of  universal  military  training  and  conscription. 

One  reason  for  this  reaction  of  war  on  normal 


40   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

women  has  been  pointed  out  by  Olive  Schreiner,  in 
a  striking  passage.  "  On  that  day,"  she  writes  in 
her  deservedly  popular  book,1  "  when  the  woman 
takes  her  place  beside  the  man  in  the  governance 
and  arrangement  of  external  affairs  of  her  race  will 
also  be  that  day  that  heralds  the  death  of  war  as  a 
means  of  arranging  human  differences.  ...  It  is 
not  because  of  woman's  cowardice,  incapacity,  nor, 
above  all,  because  of  her  general  superior  virtue, 
that  she  will  end  war  when  her  voice  is  fully  and 
clearly  heard  in  the  governance  of  states  —  it  is 
because,  on  this  one  point,  and  on  this  point  almost 
alone,  the  knowledge  of  woman,  simply  as  woman, 
is  superior  to  that  of  man;  she  knows  the  history 
of  human  flesh;  she  knows  its  cost;  he  does  not. 
In  a  besieged  city,  it  might  well  happen  that  men 
in  the  streets  might  seize  upon  statues  and  marble 
carvings  from  public  buildings  and  galleries  and 
hurl  them  in  to  stop  the  breaches  made  in  their 
ramparts  by  the  enemy,  unconsideringly  and  merely 
because  they  came  first  to  hand,  not  valuing  them 
more  than  had  they  been  paving-stones.  One  man, 
however,  could  not  do  this  —  the  sculptor.  He, 
who,  though  there  might  be  no  work  of  his  own 
chisel  among  them,  yet  knew  what  each  of  these 
i  Woman  and  Labor,  pp.  176, 180. 


WHAT  ABOUT  THE  WOMEN?  41 

works  of  art  had  cost,  knew  by  experience  the  long 
years  of  struggle  and  study  and  the  infinitude  of 
toil  which  had  gone  to  the  shaping  of  even  one  limb, 
to  the  carving  of  even  one  perfected  outline,  he 
could  never  so  use  them  without  thought  or  care. 
Instinctively  he  would  seek  to  throw  in  household 
goods,  even  gold  and  silver,  all  the  city  held,  before 
he  sacrificed  its  works  of  art !  " 

v 


CHAPTER  V 
DID  BUSINESS  HELP  OR  HINDER? 

AMONG  the  forces  counted  on  to  prevent  the  re- 
currence of  war,  business  was  considered  the  most 
dependable.  The  almost  inconceivable  cost  of  con- 
ducting modern  wars  was  set  forth  as  a  sufficient 
reason  for  believing  that  we  had  seen  the  last  war 
between  great  nations.  And  many  were  convinced, 
for  the  claim  was  not  unreasonable.  Credulity 
was  not  overtaxed  in  believing  that  the  weight  of 
war  would  prove  too  heavy  for  the  shoulders  of 
society.  It  was  said  that  international  commerce 
and  finance  had  become  so  intricate  and  complex 
that  it  would  be  the  last  limit  of  folly  to  permit  a 
modern  war  which  would  damage  and  destroy  the 
delicate  fabric  of  trade.  It  was  urged,  and  it 
sounded  plausible,  that  the  financiers,  because  they 
had  so  much  at  stake  and  because  they  could  hardly 
hope  to  profit  by  war  (except  for  a  few  money  lend- 
ers and  armament  manufacturers),  would  not  per- 
mit it  to  come.  But  they  did.  The  war  came. 
Whether  or  not  they  possessed  the  power  to  prevent 

42 


DID  BUSINESS  HELP  OR  HINDER?      43 

it  need  not  be  discussed  here.  At  best  that  is  a 
speculative-  problem.  But  the  end  is  not  yet,  and 
there  is  considerable  likelihood  that,  as  a  direct 
consequence  of  this  war,  the  opposition  of  business 
will  be  better  organised  and  far  more  determined. 

The  financial  burden  of  a  modern  war  is  as  heavy 
as  the  serpent  Midgard  that  girds  the  world.  The 
money  cost  of  the  American  Civil  War  in  round 
numbers  was  f5,000,000,000,  or  more  than  $3,500,- 
000  for  each  day  it  lasted.  The  Franco-Prussian 
and  Russo-Japanese  wars  each  cost  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  $2,500,000,000.  Between  the  years  of 
1789  and  1909  the  total  income  of  the  United  States 
Government  was  $21,401,539,121,  of  which  amount 
$10,854,850,565  was  expended  in  wars  and  pensions. 
European  nations  had,  even  before  the  war,  been 
spending  right  along  nearer  two-thirds  than  one- 
half  of  their  income  for  the  same  purpose.  The  ex- 
penditure on  naval  and  military  preparations  for 
the  six  leading  Powers  of  Europe  was,  before  the 
war,  $5,000,000  a  day.  It  is  now  twenty  times 
as  much.  The  money  cost  of  the  present  war 
makes  the  cost  of  all  previous  wars  seem  almost 
insignificant.  The  total  direct  military  cost  for 
three  years  is  estimated  by  an  expert  in  the  Me- 
chanics and  Metals  National  Bank  of  New  York 


44   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

City  l  at  the  staggering  figure  of  $75,950,000,000 ; 
the  cost  to  the  Central  Powers  being  about  $27,750,- 
000,000,  and  the  cost  to  the  Entente  Allies  not  less 
than  $48,200,000,000.  These  figures  hardly  vary 
from  those  offered  by  Count  von  Roedern,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Imperial  German  Treasury.  It  seems 
not  unlikely  that  this  war  will  cost  three  times  as 
much  as  the  Napoleonic  wars,  the  American  Civil 
War,  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  the  Boer  War,  and 
the  Russo-Japanese  War  combined. 

Nor  is  the  military  cost  all  that  must  be  posted 
on  the  debit  side  of  the  ledger,  though  that  alone 
represents  a  sum  twice  as  large  as  the  total  indebt- 
edness of  every  nation  of  the  world  in  1914 ;  a  sum 
seven  times  greater  than  the  combined  deposits  of 
the  7,600  national  banks  in  the  United  States,  and 
seven  times  greater  than  the  whole  world's  supply 
of  minted  gold ;  a  sum  sufficient  to  build  and  equip 
railroads  equal  to  five  times  the  number  now 
operating  in  the  United  States ;  to  pay  for  two  hun- 
dred such  projects  as  the  Panama  Canal;  to  pro- 
vide schools  and  teachers  for  every  child  living 

i  See  booklet  on  War  Loans  and  War  Finance.  In  reply  to  an 
inquiry  the  New  York  Times  stated  that  at  the  end  of  the  second 
year  of  the  war  the  following  approximations  were  made  of  the 
cost  for  the  principal  countries  involved:  Great  Britain, 
$7,670,000,000;  France,  $0,043,000,000;  Russia,  $4.118,000,000; 
Italy,  $2,464,000,000:  Germany.  $0,075,000,000;  Austria, 
$3,000,000,000;  Turkey,  $2,000,000,000;  Bulgaria,  $150,000,000. 


DID  BUSINESS  HELP  OR  HINDER?      45 

to-day.  But  in  addition  to  this  direct  military  cost, 
there  is  the  outright  destruction,  in  terms  of  tan- 
gible wealth,  of  cities,  railroads,  ships,  factories, 
warehouses,  bridges,  roads,  and  agricultural  values. 
And,  besides  all  this,  there  is  the  loss  of  that  per- 
centage of  Europe's  manhood  that  is  maimed  and 
destroyed ;  the  loss  of  production  in  occupied  terri- 
tories; the  decrease  in  stocks  of  food,  metal  and 
other  materials ;  the  derangement  of  the  machinery 
of  distribution ;  and  the  loss  involved  in  taking  be- 
tween thirty  and  forty  millions  of  soldiers  and  many 
other  millions  of  people,  to  do  other  things  than 
fight,  away  from  .the  opportunities  of  productive 
work. 

While  the  staggering  cost,  in  dollars  and  cents,  of 
the  war  between  the  nations  has  almost  set  at 
naught  the  total  economies  achieved  within  the  na- 
tions, and  while  no  statistician  or  actuary  could  pos- 
sibly estimate  the  moral  damage  that  has  been  done, 
the  terrible  loss  of  human  life  is  even  more  ap- 
palling. 

Where  are  the  brave,  the  strong,  the  fleet, 

The  flower  of  England's  chivalry? 
Wild  grasses  are  their  winding-sheet, 

And  sobbing  waves  their  threnody. 

The  War  Study  Society  of  Copenhagen  presents 


46   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

figures  of  the  cost  in  human  life  for  the  first  twenty- 
four  months  of  the  war.1  They  do  not  greatly  dif- 
fer from  those  published  by  the  New  York  Times 
in  reply  to  a  recent  inquiry.  "  The  estimates  of 
casualties/'  says  the  Times  article,  "  based  on  offi- 
cial data  show  that  the  second  year  of  the  war  cost 
more  than  3,000,000  lives  and  inflicted  wounds  on 
more  than  6,000,000.  Estimates  for  the  first  year 
ranged  between  the  German  report  of  2,500,000 
killed  and  more  than  5,000,000  wounded  to  Beach- 
Thomas's  estimate  of  5,000,000  killed  and  7,000,000 
wounded.  Up  to  the  period  of  the  Somme  offensive 
and  the  Brusiloff  drive,  both  of  which  began  to- 
wards the  end  of  the  second  year  of  the  war,  the 
British  had  lost  in  killed  or  totally  incapacitated, 
228,138 ;  in  prisoners,  68,046.  German  losses  were, 
killed  or  totally  incapacitated,  664,552;  prisoners, 
137,728.  France  gives  out  no  figures,  but  Deputy 
Longet  estimated  the  losses  in  killed  and  totally  in- 
capacitated at  900,000;  prisoners,  300,000.  Ger- 
man reports  of  Russian  casualties  amounted  to 
3,000,000,  of  whom  1,000,000  were  prisoners."  The 
figures  for  all  the  belligerents  make  a  veritable 
"  army  of  the  dead,"  totalling  more  than  fifteen  mil- 

i  See  also  Article  on  "  Human  Losses  in  the  First  Two  Years 
of  the  War  "  in  Current  History  for  December,  1916. 


DID  BUSINESS  HELP  OE  HINDER?      47 

lions  killed  and  wounded.  How  can  we  ever  justify 
these  extravagant  expenditures  before  the  certified 
auditors  of  history?  And  yet,  we  are  told  that  all 
this  was  known  in  advance.  Nobody  had  any 
doubt  that  a  modern  world  war  would  cost  an  in- 
conceivable amount.  In  fact,  it  was  commonly 
said  that  its  cost  would  make  it  prohibitive.  And 
still  the  war  came. 

It  seems  almost  fraudulent  and  hypocritical  to  so 
much  as  mention  the  word  "  efficiency."  It  has 
been  the  watchword  of  this  generation.  Intensive 
farming,  the  reclamation  of  arid  regions,  the  con- 
servation of  timber  lands  and  water  power,  the 
elimination  of  avoidable  accidents,  preventable  dis- 
ease, premature  toil,  excessive  poverty,  these  have 
all  been  moves  in  the  general  direction  of  social 
efficiency.  But,  of  course,  it  is  cant  and  nonsense 
to  talk  excitedly  about  prevention  of  fires  in  cities 
and  then  neglect  to  provide  protection  against 
world  conflagrations.  We  have  strained  at  gnats 
and  swallowed  camels. 

So  far  from  business  being  a  deterrent  of  war  it 
has  actually  been  a  provocative  of  war,  in  at  least 
two  ways.  First,  it  has  laid  the  fuse  for  explosion 
by  dollar  diplomacy,  or  financial  imperialism,  or 
Realpolitik  —  call  it  what  you  will.  Among  back- 


48   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ward  peoples,  in  undeveloped  regions  of  the  earth, 
it  has  sought  markets  for  its  surplus  production  and 
fields  for  the  investment  of  its  surplus  wealth. 
Then  it  has  brought  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  "  for- 
eign office,"  manipulating  diplomacy  to  secure  privi- 
leges and  concessions  and  to  back  up  its  adventur- 
ous undertakings  with  fleets  and  regiments.  The 
resulting  friction  has  more  than  once  precipitated 
conflict.1  The  second  way  in  which  business  has 
hindered  rather  than  helped  the  cause  of  peace 
among  the  nations  is  in  respect  to  abnormal  profits 
reaped  by  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  instruments 
of  destruction  and  by  trade  in  the  thousand  and  one 
things  that  are  necessary  to  the  conduct  of  war. 
That  the  makers  of  madness  have,  time  after  time, 
been  the  manufacturers  of  munitions  need  not  be 
proved  all  over  again  in  this  place.  The  evidence 
is  both  ample  and  conclusive.  It  is  too  bad  to  have 
to  believe  that  human  nature  can  and  does  stoop  so 
low  as  to  conspire  to  bring  about  war  for  the  sake 
of  the  gain  there  is  in  it.  But  facts  are  stubborn 
things. 

i  For  a  more  detailed  discussion  of  this  subject  see  Chapter 
XV,  "  Draining  the  Swamps." 


CHAPTER  VI 
WHAT'S  WRONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY? 

WITH  as  much  vigour  and  with  more  justice  it  has 
been  said  over  and  over  again  since  August,  1914, 
that  when  we  put  our  trust  in  diplomatic  negotia- 
tions we  deserved  to  be  deceived.  This,  of  course, 
is  not  the  same  thing  as  saying  that  the  individual 
diplomats  were  at  fault.  Nothing  is  more  certain 
than  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  employed  every  means 
known  to  diplomacy  to  compose  the  differences  and 
bring  about  a  settlement  by  conference.  But  the 
machinery  broke  down  under  the  strain.  The  "  sys- 
tem" was  at  fault.  The  romantic  diplomacy  of 
haute  politique  was  unequal  to  the  task  of  prevent- 
ing the  calamity. 

Interested  in  national  success  and  devoted  to 
power  and  prestige,  diplomats  have  used  the  ac- 
tual and  potential  strength  of  the  nation,  the  lives 
and  money  of  the  people,  to  play  the  game  of  inter- 
national chess.  But  diplomacy  should  be  more 
than  a  game  that  is  played  with  loaded  dice  or 
loaded  guns.  A  change  is  absolutely  imperative. 

49 


50   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

We  must  substitute  scientific  politics  for  senti- 
mental politics,  and  statesmanship  for  subtlety. 
We  must  come  to  think  of  it  as  being  the  business 
of  diplomacy  to  reduce  friction  between  States  and 
thus  forestall  war.  The  real  task  of  the  diplomat 
should  be  to  keep  things  running  smoothly  between 
nations. 

At  the  close  of  this  war  there  will  probably  need 
to  be  two  congresses.  The  first,  a  Peace  Congress 
for  the  purpose  of  drawing  up  the  terms  of  settle- 
ment. At  this  Congress  only  the  belligerent  nations 
will  be  represented.  The  second  will  be  a  bona- 
fide  Congress  of  Nations  and  will  include  neutrals. 
This  should  be  assembled  as  soon  after  the  close  of 
the  first  congress  as  is  practicable.  Some  action 
looking  toward  a  second  congress  will  doubtless  be 
taken  at  the  first  congress.  Or  it  may  be  possible 
to  effect  a  compromise  arrangement  by  protracting 
the  Peace  Congress,  by  having  an  "  after  meeting," 
so  to  speak.  At  the  first  part  of  the  Congress,  at 
which  only  the  belligerents  would  be  represented, 
all  the  terms  of  settlement  could  be  agreed  upon, 
except  the  question  of  future  securities.  The  pro- 
gressive neutral  nations,  particularly  the  United 
States,  might  then,  by  right  and  not  by  favour,  par- 
ticipate in  the  latter  part  of  the  discussion  having 


WHAT'S  WRONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY?     51 

to  do  exclusively  with  guarantees  of  future  peace. 

The  personnel  of  both  congresses  will  be  a  very 
important  consideration.  It  is  probably  too  much 
to  expect  that  the  type  of  men  who  represent  the 
nations  in  the  first  congress  will  be  so  very  different 
from  the  type  of  diplomat,  now  more  or  less  dis- 
credited, with  which  we  are  all  too  familiar.  In  all 
likelihood  the  character  of  representation  at  the 
second  congress  will  be  altogether  different. 

But  this  is  not  at  all  certain.  It  may  be  that  the 
old  school  diplomacy  will  appreciate  the  fact  that 
it  is  played  out.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  tre- 
mendous influences  have  been  operating  during  the 
past  two  years  which  may,  very  possibly,  have 
brought  about  something  of  a  conversion  or  change 
of  heart.  The  whole  world  has  been  shocked  by  the 
present  war  into  a  vivid  realisation  of  its  enormity. 
It  seems  almost  inconceivable  that  at  the  close  of 
this  war,  even  in  the  first  Treaty  Congress,  states- 
men should  sit  supine  and  indifferent  as  to  the  fu- 
ture. Besides  re-drawing  the  map  of  Europe  and 
pulling  and  hauling  for  national  advantage  as  to 
strategic  coast  lines,  naval  bases,  fortresses  and 
railroad  centres,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  they  can  do 
less  than  ponder  the  problem  of  the  possibility  of 
preventing  such  wars  in  the  future.  It  will  mean 


52   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

sacrifice.  It  will  mean  giving  up  many  ancient 
dogmas.  It  will  mean  that  in  the  very  terms  of  the 
treaty  of  peace  something  of  generosity  and  mag- 
nanimity must  enter.  Unless  Ephraim  is  joined  to 
his  idols,  and  is  altogether  impervious  to  changed 
conditions,  then  diplomacy  must  relinquish  many 
of  its  traditions  and  doctrines  and  hasten  on  the 
double-quick  to  catch  up  with  the  spirit  of  the  age. 
The  political  problem  is  at  bottom  a  moral  prob- 
lem, and  morality  is  the  problem  of  the  relationship 
between  man  and  man,  as  religion  is  the  problem  of 
the  relationship  between  man  and  God.  The  busi- 
ness of  social  morality  and  of  politics  has  to  do  with 
the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  right  rela- 
tionships between  individuals  and  groups  and  na- 
tions. A  diplomacy  that  is  thoroughly  modernised 
would  conceive  of  its  task  as  being  the  "  scientific 
management "  of  the  nations,  while  the  jobs  of  the 
diplomats  would  be,  so  to  speak,  those  of  inter- 
national efficiency  experts.  Unless  their  business 
is  to  reduce  friction  between  States,  and  to  save  the 
awful  loss  and  waste  that  result  from  friction,  car- 
ried to  the  extreme  in  war,  then  they  have  no  raison 
d'etre.  War  may  be  the  most  horrible  and  the  most 
expensive  solution  of  international  problems,  but  it 
certainly  is  the  easiest  way  out.  Creative  states- 


WHAT'S  WRONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY?     53 

men  should  conceive  and  construct  new  and  better 
ways.  Either  that  is  the  job  of  the  statesman,  or 
else  he  has  no  job. 

The  new  diplomacy  must  keep  abreast  of  the  times 
and  be  aware  of  the  vast  revolutionary  changes  that 
have  come  over  the  world  since  the  day  of  Metter- 
nich.  It  must  do  that,  it  must  be  more  modern, 
but  that  is  not  all.  It  must  be  or  become  more 
practical.  Here  there  is  the  possibility  of  confu- 
sion, for  it  will  be  contended  by  many  that  the 
trouble  with  diplomats  has  been  that  they  have 
been  altogether  too  practical,  concerning  them- 
selves with  the  minutest  details  of  profit  and  loss. 
But  that  is  not  the  point.  They  have  exercised 
what  talents  they  had  for  practicality  in  the  inter- 
ests of  privileged  groups  and  then,  for  the  rest,  they 
have  neglected  the  most  pressing  practical  prob- 
lems of  our  age.  Very  properly  they  might  have 
conceived  it  to  be  their  principal  business  to  devise 
ways  and  means  for  relieving  undue  strain  and 
stress  and  for  ridding  the  world  of  burdensome  war. 
But  instead  of  leading  they  have,  all  too  often,  been 
led.  They  have  been  led  by  two  groups  within  the 
State  with  whom  they  were  altogether  too  familiar, 
—  the  group  of  militarists  prepossessed  with  the 
idea  of  war,  and  the  group  of  financiers  seeking  an 


54   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

opportunity  for  profitable  investment.  Of  course 
no  blanket  charge  can  be  made  against  all  diplo- 
mats on  this  score ;  but  these  things  have  been  true 
of  them  as  a  class. 

The  acid  test  of  value  is  being  applied  all  through 
modern  life.  For  example,  when  it  is  applied  in 
the  department  of  education  and  the  work  of  the 
schools,  we  say  that  education  must  be  more  con- 
crete and  objective,  so  we  institute  vocational  edu- 
cation and  commercial  training,  establish  "  Gary  " 
schools  and  "  Modern "  schools.  The  churches 
have  had  to  face  the  same  problem.  The  fear  of 
futility  constantly  spurs  them  on  to  more  and 
more  social  and  political  effort.  In  like  manner 
domestic  politics  has  had  to  come  down  to  earth 
and  concern  itself  with  the  details  of  improving  the 
conditions  of  life  and  labour.  "  Practical  "  politi- 
cians, corrupt  and  contented,  long  asked  the  ques- 
tion, What  has  posterity  done  for  me?  And  then, 
without  waiting  for  a  reply,  they  have  fed  their 
greed  for  sordid  gain.  But  what  has  come  to  be 
known  as  the  era  of  conscience  in  domestic  politics 
means  that  the  old  style  of  "  practical "  politics  is 
at  an  end.  It  means  that  grafters,  profiting  by 
crass  methods  of  purchase,  have  had  to  shut  up  shop 
and  go  out  of  business.  The  new  demand  is  for  an- 


WHAT'S  WRONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY?     55 

other  sort  of  practicality.  Politicians,  to  be  suc- 
cessful, have  learned  that  they  must  concern  them- 
selves with  the  problems  of  the  common  people; 
must  invent  new  ways  of  putting  tools  into  the 
hands  of  those  that  can  use  them,  of  supplying  land 
to  those  that  can  till  it,  of  reducing  the  hours  of 
labour  to  a  reasonable  minimum,  and  of  fixing  a 
standard  living  wage  that  must  be  paid.  This  new 
practical  politics  is  obliged  to  wrestle  with  these 
yery  tangible  problems.  In  America,  for  example, 
it  is  supposed  to  redeem  the  waste  places  and  to 
exploit  the  natural  resources  for  the  benefit  of 
all. 

Now  the  time  has  come,  and  can  no  longer  be 
put  off,  when  international  statesmen  must  likewise 
become  more  practical.  On  the  one  hand,  they  must 
become  less  metaphysical  and  mystical ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  must  refuse  any  longer  to  pull 
chestnuts  out  of  the  fire  for  the  private  profit  of  a 
few.  They  must  become  engrossed  in  the  social 
and  industrial  interests  of  the  ordinary  people  who 
make  up  the  nations.  This  is  the  temper  of  the 
times.  This  is  the  humanistic  spirit  of  the  age  in 
which  we  live.  And  surely,  by  all  odds,  the  great- 
est service  they  could  possibly  render  to  the  people 
of  the  nations  would  be  to  provide  and  enter  upon 


56   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

agreements  that  would  reduce  to  a  minimum  the 
likelihood  of  war. 

But  the  new  diplomacy  must  be  not  only  more 
modern  and  more  practical;  it  must  also  be  more 
responsible  and  more  public.  These  two  things  are 
spoken  of  at  the  same  time  because  of  their  very 
intimate  connection.  We  have  heard  a  great  deal 
about  the  wickedness  and  menace  of  "  secret  diplo- 
macy." Indeed  some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  place 
the  whole  burden  and  blame  of  the  war  on  its 
shoulders.  Nor  is  it  to  be  doubted  that  secret  diplo- 
macy will  have  to  render  its  account  before  the 
Grand  Assize  of  History  for  its  share  of  culpability. 
At  the  same  time  there  is  something  in  the  conten- 
tion that  many  affairs  of  state  ought  not  to  be 
spread  in  block  type  upon  the  front  pages  of  the 
newspapers, —  at  least  not  during  the  early  stages 
of  negotiation.  The  people  themselves,  those  who 
are  asking  for  an  end  of  secret  diplomacy,  would 
not  infrequently  be  the  greatest  losers  if  their  re- 
quest for  immediate  and  full  publicity  were  granted. 
It  is  alsa  true,  and  important  to  keep  in  mind,  that 
responsible  cabinets  are  often  more  wisely  con- 
servative than  parliaments.  Ministers  are  fre- 
quently less  headstrong  and  hysterical  than  masses. 
But  there  must  be  a  golden  mean  between  instant 


WHAT'S  WRONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY?     57 

and  complete  publicity  of  all  delicate  negotiations 
and  the  method  now  too  much  in  vogue  of  hiding 
the  facts  from  the  people  who  have  the  best  right  to 
know  what  is  going  on,  since  it  is  they  that  must 
pay  the  cost  for  every  blunder.  Again  and  again 
it  has  been  pointed  out  as  an  anomaly  that  in  this 
age  of  complete  publicity  the  trade  of  the  diplomat, 
on  which  the  happiness  of  empires  and  generations 
is  so  often  dependent,  should  continue  to  be  secret. 
It  is  more  than  an  anomaly,  it  is  a  tragedy.  Diplo- 
macy must  be  democratised,  and  parliaments  must 
control  foreign  affairs. 

Surprising  as  it  may  seem  to  those  who  have  not 
given  thought  to  the  matter,  it  will  have  to  be  con- 
fessed that  in  many  modern  nations  we  have  democ- 
ratised practically  everything  else  but  foreign  af- 
fairs. Eeligion  has  been  democratised.  Education 
has  been  democratised.  Domestic  politics  has  been 
democratised.  Like  the  divine  right  of  the  financier 
to  give  or  withhold  credit,  the  divine  right  of  the 
diplomat  to  prevent  or  precipitate  war,  remains  as 
a  sort  of  socio-political  appendix.  It  is  not  nearly 
so  important  that  foreign  affairs  should  be  open  and 
public  as  it  is  that  diplomats  and  foreign  secretaries 
should  be  held  to  strict  accountability. 

This  is  probably  the  most  important  aspect  of 


58   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

the  whole  question  of  peace  and  war.  Between 
democracy  and  world  peace  there  is  undoubtedly  a 
very  close  connection.  We  shall  have  somewhat 
more  to  say  of  this  in  a  subsequent  chapter.1  It  is 
therefore  not  necessary  for  us  to  discuss  here,  at  any 
great  length,  the  question  of  absolutism  in  govern- 
ment. Probably  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
world  are  convinced  that  monarchs  with  autocratic 
power  are  anachronisms.  They  are  archaic  and 
will  soon  be  obsolete.  They  have  had  their  day  and 
must  soon  cease  to  be.  But  however  we  may  feel 
about  that  question,  there  is  everywhere  to-day  the 
feeling  that  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  common  people 
who  at  last  must  do  the  greater  part  of  the  fight- 
ing, they  ought  at  least  to  have  some  voice  in  de- 
termining the  question  of  whether  or  not  war  shall 
be  declared  and  prosecuted. 

It  will  be  said  that  while  ordinary,  average  men 
and  women  may  be  trusted  with  the  management  of 
domestic  affairs  and  the  solution  of  internal  prob- 
lems, when  it  comes  to  foreign  affairs  or  interna- 
tional politics,  why,  that  is  quite  another  matter. 
In  the  first  place,  we  are  told,  the  people  are  not 
interested  in  foreign  affairs.  Now  if  that  has  been 
true,  whose  fault  is  it?  Who  has  tried  to  interest 

i  Chapter  XVII,  "  Souls  in  Revolt." 


WHAT'S  WKONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY?     59 

them  in  foreign  affairs,  or  who  has  tried  to  make 
foreign  affairs  interesting?  A  veil  of  vagueness  has 
been  drawn  over  all  things  international.  Nobody 
has  tried  to  quicken  the  people  with  a  desire  for  full 
and  sound  knowledge  in  these  matters.  Their  curi- 
osity has  been  neither  excited  nor  encouraged. 
Some  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  assert  that  rela- 
tions between  nations  do  not  concern  the  people, — 
which  of  course  is  ridiculous  on  the  face  of  it.  If 
they  do  not  concern  the  people,  then  they  do  not  con- 
cern anybody ;  and  if  they  do  concern  anybody,  then 
they  certainly  concern  the  people.  Furthermore, 
we  are  told  that  the  people  do  not  care  anything 
about  and  cannot  possibly  understand  international 
politics.  But  who  has  been  at  any  pains  to  educate 
the  people  in  these  subjects?  If  they  are  ignorant, 
who  is  at  fault?  To  speak  very  frankly,  have  they 
not  been  purposely  kept  ignorant  by  the  high  priests 
of  statecraft  so  that  they  might  not  be  tempted  to 
interfere? 

It  is  perfectly  true  that  there  are  many  academic 
matters  that  are  not  sufficiently  tangent  to  the  peo- 
ple's daily  lives  to  arouse  their  interest  and  grip 
their  attention.  But,  after  all,  this  is  very  largely 
a  matter  of  words  and  manner  of  presentation.  For 
example,  the  ordinary  run  of  everyday  people  may 


60   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

not  appear  to  be  particularly  interested  in  theology. 
They  certainly  do  not  bother  their  heads  about  pro- 
found problems  of  divinity;  but  they  are  tremen- 
dously interested  in  the  practical  problems  of  per- 
sonal religion.  Or  again,  they  may  be  entirely  un- 
familiar with  Buckle  and  Hegel  and  may  not  care 
a  straw  about  the  philosophy  of  history  as  such; 
but  they  are  deeply  interested  in  the  question  of 
whether  the  world  is  getting  better  or  worse, — 
which  is  the  philosophy  of  history.  Or  yet  again, 
the  man  in  the  street  is  not  worried  very  much  over 
questions  of  moral  philosophy  —  questions  about 
purpose,  and  design,  and  the  final  meaning  of  life 
—  but  he  does  care  a  lot  about  whether  his  life  is 
worth  living  and  how  he  can  make  it  more  so.  The 
first  man  you  meet  on  your  way  home  from  work 
will  tell  you  he  does  not  know  what  you  are  driving 
at  when  you  talk  learnedly  about  psychology ;  in  all 
likelihood  he  will  tell  you  that  he  is  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  interested  in  psychology.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  is  the  name  and  the  abstraction 
that  he  is  not  interested  in,  for  he  is  vitally  inter- 
ested in  human  nature,  his  own  and  others',  and  not 
infrequently  is  himself  something  of  an  expert  and 
boasts  of  the  fact  that  he  can  read  his  friends  like 


WHAT'S  WRONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY?     61 

a  book.  It  is  something  very  much  like  this  when 
it  comes  to  diplomacy. 

To  speak  by  the  record,  before  this  present  war, 
the  average  man  or  woman  was  not  overmuch  con- 
cerned about  foreign  affairs.  But  this  war,  as  has 
been  true  of  no  other  war  in  history,  has  brought 
the  concrete  problems  of  diplomacy  not  only  into 
the  editorial  leaders  and  the  headlines  of  the  daily 
newspapers,  but  also  into  the  active  consciousness 
of  the  daily  lives  of  the  multitudes.  To-day  when 
Presidents,  Premiers  and  Chancellors  talk,  about 
foreign  politics,  the  common  people  hear  them 
gladly.  Diplomacy  has  ceased  to  be  something  re- 
mote and  recondite,  the  intellectual  indulgence  of 
learned  statesmen,  and  has  become,  or  is  well  on  the 
way  to  becoming,  as  much  a  matter  of  genuine  con- 
cern as  business  or  religion  or  domestic  politics. 
And  this  is  little  less  than  a  revolution. 

Whether  in  the  past  the  multitudes  have  or  have 
not  been  interested  in  foreign  affairs,  whether  they 
have  or  have  not  known  or  cared  anything  at  all 
about  international  politics  and  the  problems  of 
diplomacy,  this  war  has  pointed  a  period  to  their 
lackadaisical  indifference.  They  do  care  now,  and 
they  are  going  to  care  even  more.  Nor  will  their 


62   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

interest  stop  short  of  actual  participation.  Their 
newly  acquired  knowledge  will  ripen  into  action. 
"  If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do 
them,"  and  the  people  are  going  to  do  something 
about  war  and  peace.  And  one  of  the  first  things 
they  are  going  to  do  is  to  come  to  real  grips  with 
the  "problem  of  misplaced  or  irresponsible  author- 
ity. How?  By  drafting  and  demanding  the  pas- 
sage of  bills  which  will  take  the  authority  for  de- 
claring war  out  of  the  hands  of  absolute  monarchs 
and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the  representatives  of 
the  people. 

Paradoxically  enough,  foreign  affairs  are  the  most 
personal  of  all  affairs.  And  this  is  only  another 
way  of  saying  that  to-day,  even  in  the  more  demo- 
cratic countries,  the  actions  and  decisions  of  diplo- 
mats may  precipitate  war  and  rob  the  home  of  its 
most  precious  possessions.  That  is  why  it  is  a  local 
issue,  a  personal  matter.  Without  so  much  as  a 
"  by  your  leave,"  boys  of  tender  years,  whose  lives 
might  well  have  been  cherished  by  the  State  for 
more  profitable  adventures,  are  hustled  off  by  the 
millions  to  become  fuel  for  the  incinerators  that 
follow  in  the  train  of  every  battle. 

But  the  new  diplomacy  will  be  not  only  more 
modern,  more  practical,  more  public,  and  more  re- 


WHAT'S  WRONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY?     63 

sponsible;  it  will  also  be  more  ethical.  Make  no 
mistake.  We  are  not  here  discussing  the  question 
of  the  personal  morality  of  diplomats.  Our  present 
interest  is  in  something  vastly  more  important  than 
that.  It  is  a  question  of  standards.  The  doc- 
trine of  state  sovereignty,  which  makes  a  nation 
a  law  unto  itself  — "  a  moral  absolute,"  as  John  A. 
Hobson  puts  it  —  implies  the  right  of  a  nation  to 
invent  its  own  code  of  morals  and  then,  of  course, 
attribute  it  to  revelation  or  to  anything  else  that 
happens  to  suit  its  fancy.  Then,  when  war  is  de- 
clared, it  becomes  possible  to  make  null  and  void  all 
the  ethical  standards  of  the  race.  Theoretically, 
a  nation  may  do  with  impunity  what  no  individual 
is  allowed  to  do.  It  may  commit  every  crime  on  the 
calendar,  and  then  excuse  its  action  on  the  grounds 
of  military  necessity.  Theft,  arson,  rapine  and 
murder,  are  all  committed  with  as  much  sang  froid 
as  if  there  never  had  been  any  Moses  and  the 
Prophets,  as  if  the  race  never  had  established  any 
standards  of  morality  more  exacting  than  those  of 
savagery  and  barbarism.1 

But  perhaps  all  the  unlovely  deeds  that  shock  our 
sense  of  right  and  decency  are  the  necessary  attend- 
ants upon  war.  Perhaps  it  will  be  just  as  well  for 

i  See  Chapter  XVII,  "  Souls  in  Revolt." 


64   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

us  to  recognise  the  fact  that  any  attempt  to  civilise 
warfare  is  like  attempting  to  square  the  circle. 
And  perhaps  that  is  just  why  those  who  wrote  the 
provisions  in  the  Hague  Conventions  which  had  to 
do  with  the  sufferings  of  civil  populations,  with  the 
destruction  of  public  buildings  and  works  of  art, 
with  the  sinking  of  ships  and  their  passengers,  with 
the  use  of  fire  and  hunger  as  weapons,  and  with 
every  other  attempt  to  regulate  warfare  on  land 
and  sea,  qualified  their  provisions  by  such  saving 
clauses  as,  "  as  far  as  is  compatible  with  military 
necessity,"  and  so  forth. 

But  what  reasons  have  we  for  the  hope  that  is  in 
us,  the  hope  that  such  revolutionary  changes  in 
diplomacy  as  we  have  suggested  can  possibly  be 
brought  about?  With  the  history  of  the  past  in 
mind,  how  can  we  reasonably  expect  that  states- 
men will  do  now  what  they  never  before  have  done, 
—  never  before  have  even  attempted  to  do?  There 
are  several  very  excellent  reasons  for  believing  that 
at  the  close  of  this  present  war  a  sincere  and  genu- 
ine attempt  will  at  last  be  made  to  establish  perma- 
nent peace. 

First  among  these  reasons  may  be  mentioned  the 
fact  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  hand  of  God 
in  human  history,  call  it  Providence,  Fate,  or  what 


WHAT'S  WRONG  WITH  DIPLOMACY?      65 

you  will.  There  is  in  the  affairs  of  men  a  tide 
which  taken  at  its  flood  leads  on  to  certain  great 
objectives.  The  present  tide  is  swiftly  running  in 
the  direction  of  international  organisation,  or  at 
any  rate,  in  the  direction  of  a  closer  fellowship 
among  the  nations  of  the  world;  and  this  in  spite 
of  the  war  and  all  its  aroused  hatreds.  Potent  as 
4s  the  will  of  the  individual  and  of  the  social  group 
in  determining  human  affairs,  there  seem  also  to  be, 
at  the  same  time,  certain  strong  currents  of  history 
or  destiny  which  hasten  us  onward  towards  far-off 
divine  events. 

But  it  will  not  do  for  us  to  be  fatalistic  optimists 
who  believe  that  to  achieve  certain  consummations 
all  that  is  necessary  is  devoutly  to  wish  for  them. 
Therefore,  the  second  fact  on  which  we  base  our 
faith  is  the  development  of  what  has  been  called  an 
international  mind.  It  does  not  make  a  great  deal 
of  difference  whether  or  not  we  believe  in  "  Inter- 
nationalism.'' The  important  fact,  which  cannot  be 
gainsaid,  is  that  countless  forces  are  making  for  the 
cohesion  and  integration  of  the  whole  world. 

Nor  is  this  all.  What  has  already  been  said  in 
the  conclusions  to  all  the  earlier  chapters  should  be 
reviewed  and  recalled  at  this  point.  The  new  em- 
phasis in  pacifism,  the  changed  accent  in  religion, 


66   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

the  tremendous  force  of  public  opinion,  the  deter- 
mined mood  of  modern  business,  the  growing  oppo- 
sition of  women  and  the  threatened  revolt  of  the 
workers, —  these  all  furnish  additional  reasons  for 
believing  that  statesmen,  however  obscurantist  and 
near-sighted,  will  see  the  handwriting  on  the  wall. 
These  are  the  forces  that  have  failed.  The  war 
came  in  spite  of  the  pacifists,  the  Christians,  the 
workers,  the  women,  the  bankers  and  the  diplomats. 
But  what  of  the  future?  Is  there  nothing  that  will 
prevent  war?  Is  there  nothing  that  will  diminish 
the  probability  of  its  recurrent  return?  It  is  too 
soon  to  give  up  hope  and  lose  heart.  The  future  is 
fertile  with  possible  plans  that  may  prove  prac- 
ticable. In  the  succeeding  chapters  we  shall  study 
in  detail  the  proposals  of  one  of  these  projects. 


PAET  II 
A  PEOGEAMME  TO  PEEVENT  WAE 


THE  GREAT  DIVIDE  OF  HISTORY 

We  are  on  the  verge  of  a  Great  Divide.  As  we  look  down 
the  slope  of  the  past  three  years  we  are  sobered  and  saddened. 
Faith  and  optimism  are  at  a  premium.  Despair  has  come  up 
like  a  miasmic  fog  from  the  Mood-swamps  of  Europe.  We  are 
choked  by  the  poisonous  gases  of  doubt.  It  is  not  surprising 
if  many  have  grown  sceptical  of  reform  and  are  saying  that 
civilisation  has  collapsed.  But  civilisation  has  not  really  col- 
lapsed. This  is  not  the  debacle  of  civilisation.  The  treasures 
of  a  hundred  ages  have  not  been  altogether  swept  away  by  the 
cyclone  of  ivar.  When  the  debris  has  been  cleared  ice  shall 
doubtless  find  that  the  accumulated  wealth  of  art,  and  litera- 
ture, and  culture,  and  tolerance,  the  love  of  liberty  and  the 
passion  for  justice,  are  secure  in  the  war-proof  vaults  of  heart 
and  mind.  We  must  not  permit  our  tears  to  blind  us  to  this 
fact. 

Some  of  us,  fatuously  enough  as  it  now  appears,  had  sup- 
posed that  the  pillars  of  society  were  religion  and  culture  and 
democracy  —  the  church,  the  school,  and  enlightened  public 
opinion.  Evidently  we  were  mistaken.  Not  these,  but  brute 
force  alone  was  the  foundation  upon  which  the  towering  struc- 
ture of  the  State  had  been  based!  Paradoxical  as  it  may 
seem,  the  sills  and  girders  of  fear  and  force  can  no  longer  be 
trusted  to  bear  the  iveight  and  stand  the  strain  of  modern  sky- 
scraper States.  New  underpinnings  of  reason  and  justice, 
along  with  the  practical  means  for  making  reason  and  justice 
operative  in  international  relations,  must  be  substituted  if  we 
icoitld  have  the  edifice  endure. 


CHAPTER  VII 
A  LEAGUE  OF  STATES 

"  THE  federative  system,"  says  Guizot  in  his  His- 
tory of  Civilisation  in  Europe,  "  is  that  which  evi- 
dently requires  the  greatest  development  of  reason, 
morality,  and  civilisation  in  the  society  to  which  it 
is  applied/'  From  this  we  may  infer  that  the  goal 
of  progress,  the  happiness  of  the  nations,  is  to  be 
discovered  and  attained  by  the  gradual  substitution 
of  co-operation  for  competition.  The  gregarious 
instinct  slowly  evolves  into  conscious  organisation, 
first  for  protection,  and  then,  later  on,  for  conquest 
and  enterprise.  Necessity  is  the  mother  of  inven- 
tion in  more  ways  than  one.  The  family  was  "  in- 
vented" to  protect  the  child  and  states  were  "in- 
vented" to  protect  the  family,  the  clan,  and  the 
tribe.  Primitive  men,  naturally  wary  of  strangers 
in  spite  of  the  instinct  for  fellowship,  got  together 
and  formed  mutual  aid  societies,  so  to  speak,  in  or- 
der the  more  successfully  to  defend  themselves 
against  wild  beasts,  untoward  environment,  and 
other  threatening  groups.  Families  combined  into 

71 


72   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

clans  —  close  corporations  of  kindred  —  and  these 
in  turn  were  merged  or  federated  into  tribes.  The 
struggle  between  tribes,  usually  over  proprietary 
rights  in  nature,  resulted  in  the  firmer  union  of 
each  group  in  opposition  to  hostile  groups. 

Organisation  for  defence  and  conquest  became  a 
more  effective  weapon  than  individual  slings  and 
arrows.  After  long  generations  of  futile  fighting 
that  never  got  anybody  anywhere,  tools  were  in- 
vented, and  tilling  began  to  be  considered  almost 
as  important  as  killing.  Perhaps  the  curse  of  the 
world  has  always  been  that  men  have  preferred 
stealing  to  working.  Even  Adam  tried  to  get  his 
food  by  some  other  method  than  "  trimming  the 
vineyard."  The  exploitation  of  the  weak  by  the 
strong  in  order  to  get  something  that  you  want  and 
that  doesn't  belong  to  you  has  been  the  chief  cause 
of  most  of  the  wars  of  history,  dating  back  to  very 
earliest  times  and  coming  down  to  the  day  before 
yesterday.  Treitschke  says  that  "  it  is  a  false  con- 
clusion that  wars  are  waged  for  the  sake  of  material 
advantage."  1  He  tells  us  that  "  modern  wars  are 
not  fought  for  the  sake  of  booty."  But  he  would 
find  it  difficult  to  maintain  this  position.  The  pre- 
daceous  instinct,  and  not  the  fighting  instinct,  is 

i  Politics,  Vol.  I,  p.  15. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  STATES  73 

really  at  the  bottom  of  all  wars.  The  desire  for  ag- 
grandisement and  not  the  lust  for  combat  is  the 
true  explanation  why  people  and  nations  war  upon 
one  another. 

"  The  progress  of  man/'  writes  Walter  Bagehot, 
"  requires  the  co-operation  of  men  for  its  develop- 
ment. That  which  any  one  man  or  any  one  family 
could  invent  for  themselves  is  obviously  exceedingly 
limited.  .  .  .  The  rudest  sort  of  co-operative  soci- 
ety, the  lowest  tribe  and  the  feeblest  government,  is 
much  stronger  than  isolated  man.  The  first  princi- 
ple of  the  subject  is  that  man  can  only  make  prog- 
ress in  '  co-operative  groups.'  .  .  .  For  unless  you 
can  make  a  strong  co-operative  bond,  your  society 
will  be  conquered  and  killed  out  by  some  other  so- 
ciety which  has  such  a  bond."  x  Certainly  it  has 
been  discovered  in  modern  business  and  industry 
and  all  constructive  undertakings,  that  the  big 
tasks  of  civilisation  can  best  be  done  by  co-opera- 
tion. It  is  hard  for  one  man  to  build  a  city  or 
drain  a  swamp  or  span  a  trestle  across  a  river. 
And  that  is  why  we  have  partnerships,  companies, 
syndicates,  corporations, —  and  government.  Gov- 
ernment may  be  defined  as  the  organised  attempt  of 
thousands  or  millions  of  individuals  to  "  consoli- 

i  Physics  and  Politics,  Chapter  VI,  p.  131. 


74   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

date "  the  advances  made  by  civilisation,  and  to 
make  some  particular  part  of  the  earth  a  better 
place  for  people  to  live  in.  This  is  the  most  impor- 
tant task  of  government.  More  often  than  not  it 
botches  the  job  or  shirks  it  altogether. 

The  authors  of  The  Federalist  papers  have  called 
attention  to  the  striking  similarity  between  the 
American  federal  system  and  the  confederation  of 
Greek  republics  associated  under  the  Amphictyonic 
Council.  Compare  the  authority  of  this  Council 
with  that  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  placed  at  the  disposal  of  our  national  admin- 
istration :  "  The  members  retained  the  character 
of  independent  and  sovereign  States,  and  had  equal 
votes  in  the  federal  Council.  This  Council  had  a 
general  authority  to  propose  and  resolve  whatever 
it  judged  necessary  for  the  common  welfare  of 
Greece;  to  declare  and  carry  on  war;  to  decide,  in 
the  last  resort,  all  controversies  between  members ; 
to  fine  the  aggressing  party;  to  employ  the  whole 
force  of  the  confederacy  against  the  disobedient. 
.  .  .  They  had  a  declared  authority  to  use  coercion 
against  refractory  cities,  and  were  bound  by  oath  to 
exert  this  authority  on  the  necessary  occasions."  * 

Another  society  of  Grecian  Republics,  at  first  and 

i  Essay  No.  XVIII,  p.  89. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  STATES  75 

up  till  the  time  when  the  Amphictyonic  Council  was 
destroyed  by  the  machinations  of  Macedon,  was 
comprised  of  the  less  important  cities.  It  was 
called  the  Achaean  League  and  later  on  embraced 
almost  all  of  Peloponnesus.  The  same  authors 
quoted  above 1  defined  the  powers  of  this  league  as 
follows :  "  The  cities  composing  this  league  re- 
tained their  municipal  jurisdiction,  appointed  their 
own  officers,  and  enjoyed  a  perfect  equality.  The 
Senate  in  which  they  were  represented  had  the  sole 
and  universal  right  of  peace  and  war;  of  sending 
and  receiving  ambassadors ;  of  entering  into  treaties 
and  alliances ;  of  appointing  a  Chief  Magistrate  or 
Praetor,  as  he  was  called,  who  commanded  their 
armies,  and  who,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  ten 
of  the  senators,  not  only  administered  the  Govern- 
ment in  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  but  had  a  great 
share  in  its  deliberations  when  assembled." 

Montesquieu  tells  us  that  "  it  was  these  associa- 
tions that  so  long  contributed  to  the  prosperity  of 
Greece."  2 

States,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  have  not  long  re- 
mained static,  but  have  expanded  in  size  and  impor- 
tance by  increases  in  population  and  forms  of  com- 

1  Essay  No.  XVIII,  p.  92. 

2  The  Spirit  of  Laws,  Book  IX,  p.  126. 


76   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

bination.  The  time  was  when  cities  were  inde- 
pendent and  sovereign  States  —  Athens,  Sparta, 
Florence,  Venice.  Because  Mr.  Stentor's  voice 
could  not  proclaim  the  news  so  as  to  be  heard  by 
more  than  ten  thousand  people  the  maximum  size 
of  cities  was  arbitrarily  fixed  at  that  number. 
With  the  invention  of  the  printing  press,  of  modern 
means  of  communication  and  transportation,  the 
borders  were  gradually  pushed  back  towards  the 
horizon.  The  basis  of  a  common  government  is 
common  interests.  Transportation  and  communi- 
cation facilities,  trade,  commerce,  the  universal 
translation  of  learning  and  literature, —  all  these 
things  tended  to  broaden  the  base  of  the  common 
interest  and  thus  at  the  same  time  extend  the  fron- 
tiers of  government.  States  have  drawn  nearer 
and  nearer  together  until  propinquity  has  ended  in 
marriage.  Again  and  again  this  has  happened. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  recall  that  in  the  early 
ages  of  Christianity  Germany  was  occupied  by  seven 
distinct  nations,  each  having  sovereign  jurisdiction 
and  independence.  To-day  there  are  twenty-six 
states  and  provinces  in  the  close-knit  German  Con- 
federation. 

The  Swiss  cantons  furnish  another  modern  in- 
stance of  the  application  of  the  federative  princi- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  STATES  77 

pie.1  The  several  and  separate  cantons,  or  depart- 
ments, have  delegated  less  authority  to  the  Central 
Government  than  any  other  confederacy,  ancient  or 
modern.  Perhaps  for  this  reason  they  furnish  a 
better  analogy,  or  prototype,  of  the  sort  of  society 
of  nations  that  is  sometimes  conceived  of  as  not  im- 
probable. 

Much  the  same  thing  is  true  of  the  United  Neth- 
erlands, which  is  a  confederation  of  co-equal  and 
sovereign  States-General. 

Alexander  Hamilton  builded  better  than  he  knew 
when,  with  Washington  and  Franklin  and  Madison, 
in  1788,  he  constructed  the  foundation  walls  of  the 
nation  by  forcing  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. From  these  early  beginnings,  and  not 
without  toil  and  struggle,  the  United  States  of 
America  has  grown.  States  and  sections  have 
yielded  more  and  more  to  increasing  demands  for 

iSee  Bryce's  American  Commonwealth,  Chapters  27,  28,  29 
and  30 ;  also  Woodrow  Wilson's  The  State.  John  Fiske,  in  his 
American  Political  Ideas  (p.  133),  says  that,  stated  broadly,  the 
principle  of  federalism  is  just  this:  "  That  the  people  of  a 
State  shall  have  full  and  entire  control  of  their  own  domestic  af- 
fairs, which  directly  concern  them  only,  and  which  they  will  nat- 
urally manage  with  more  intelligence  and  with  more  zeal  than 
any  distinct  governing  body  could  possibly  exercise;  but  that, 
as  regards  matters  of  common  concern  between  a  group  of  States, 
a  decision  shall  in  every  case  be  reached,  not  by  brutal  warfare 
or  by  weary  diplomacy,  but  by  the  systematic  legislation  of  a 
central  government  which  represents  both  States  and  people, 
and  whose  decision  can  be  enforced,  if  necessary,  by  the  com- 
bined physical  forces  of  all  the  States." 


78   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

national  unity.  We  probably  need  no  reminder  of 
the  fact  that  the  thirteen  original  States  of  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts-Bay,  Rhode  Island  and 
Providence  Plantations,  Connecticut,  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  after  entering  into  a  "  firm  league  of 
friendship  and  perpetual  union/'  still  retained  their 
"  Sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence,  and  every 
Power,  Jurisdiction  and  Right  which  was  not  ex- 
pressly delegated  to  the  new  united  states  in  con- 
gress assembled,"  etc.1  The  treaty  of  peace  con- 
cluded with  Great  Britain  at  Paris,  September  3d, 
1783,  closing  the  War  of  Independence,  expressly 
said  "  his  British  Majesty  acknowledges  the  said 
United  States  2  ...  as  free,  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent states." 

The  process  towards  amalgamation  (for  America 
is  now  more  than  a  federation)  has  been  a  gradual 
development.  The  need  of  presenting  a  solid  front 
for  defence  against  foes  from  without  tended  to  ac- 
celerate its  evolution.  "  United  we  stand ;  divided 
we  fall "  and  "  In  union  there  is  strength  "  were 
more  than  high-sounding  political  slogans.  Also, 

1  Articles  of  Federation,  Article  II.     (1781.) 

2  Here  the  several  States  are  individually  listed. 


A  LEAGUE  OP  STATES  79 

one  invention  after  another  had  the  effect  of  bind- 
ing the  several  communities  and  states  more  inti- 
mately together.  The  result  was  the  all  but  imper- 
ceptible erasure  of  the  lines  of  separation.  Bound- 
aries began  to  appear  more  as  things  that  bound 
States  together  than  as  frontiers  which  set  the 
limits  and  marked  the  confines  of  common  interest 
and  purpose.  It  became  increasingly  difficult  to 
remain  provincial,  and  to  keep  up  the  illusion  of  a 
dozen  absolutely  sovereign  States  operating  inde- 
pendently of  one  another.  The  facts  of  modern  life 
made  the  fiction  appear  too  romantic.  The  com- 
mon notion  that  the  Civil  War  was  fought  merely  to 
maintain  an  abstract  theory  of  political  philosophy 
is  incredible.  The  war  was  precipitated  to  free 
the  slaves.  Freeing  the  slaves  was  the  next  step 
towards  democracy.  Calhoun's  arguments  in  de- 
fence of  States'  Rights  have  never  really  been  re- 
futed. They  are  probably  unanswerable  as  logic. 
But,  as  F.  C.  H.  Schiller  has  pointed  out,  logic 
is  made  for  life  and  not  life  for  logic,  An- 
other way  to  put  it  would  be  to  paraphrase  the 
philosophy  of  pragmatism  and  say  that  the  doctrine 
of  sovereignty  was  true  so  long  as  it  served  a  useful 
purpose.  After  a  certain  point  had  been  reached 
and  passed,  it  became  a  fond  delusion,  a  vain  super- 


80   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

stition,  a  political  heirloom, —  intellectual  bric-a- 
brac. 

But  we  must  not  think  that  the  idea  of  a  sov- 
ereign state  or  nation  is  as  old  as  the  hills,  for  it  is 
not.  It  is  like  the  "  wage-system  "  and  so  many 
other  things  to  which  we  have  grown  accustomed. 
We  think  it  must  be  rimy  with  age  just  because  the 
mind  of  the  oldest  inhabitant  runneth  not  to  the 
contrary.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  idea  of  human 
sovereignty  probably  dates  back  to  the  time  when 
God  was  supposed  to  have  delegated  his  power  on 
earth  to  a  vicar  of  Rome.  Then  when  the  schism 
arose  between  the  Roman  Church  and  the  Protes- 
tant Sects  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  Luther 
convinced  the  reigning  kings  that  they,  as  well  as 
the  Pope,  ruled  by  "  divine  right."  Nor  did  the  re- 
volt against  absolutism  in  government  put  an  end  to 
the  notion  of  sovereignty.  It  transferred  the  seat 
of  authority  to  the  people.  The  relativity  of  all  hu- 
man life  makes  the  doctrine  of  absolute  sovereignty 
untenable.  You  can  no  more  have  a  score  or  a 
hundred  conflicting  and  competing  sovereignties 
and  sovereigns  than  you  can  have  three  or  four  uni- 
verses, or  a  half-dozen  infinities.  But  superstitions 
die  hard  and  nobody  likes  to  acknowledge  that  he 
has  been  worshipping  a  fetish. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  STATES  81 

It  is  true  that  such  a  tentative  society  of  nations 
as  is  here  proposed  is,  in  one  sense,  a  new  depar- 
ture; in  another  sense  it  is  but  the  next  and  most 
natural  step  to  take  in  the  direction  in  which  we 
have  been  going  right  along.  No  revolutionary  at- 
tempt will  be  made  to  abolish  by  an  emancipation 
proclamation  men's  slavery  to  ideas.  There  will  be 
no  prohibition  against  any  and  all  nations  and  rul- 
ers still  believing  in  the  "  divine  right  of  kings  "  or 
"  the  sovereignty  of  States  " ;  but  the  practical  ef- 
fect of  a  successful  league  of  nations  would  be  to 
limit  the  possible  harm  that  these  theories  could  do. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  movement  away  from 
national  individualism  and  towards  international 
mutualism  would  more  than  likely  result  in  pro- 
tecting small  states  in  the  assertion  and  mainte- 
nance of  their  inalienable  but  alienated  rights  to 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  In  fact, 
in  the  course  of  a  speech  at  Dublin  ( September  25, 
1.914)  Premier  Asquith  took  occasion  to  speak  of 
"  an  equal  level  of  opportunity  and  of  independence 
between  small  States  and  great  States  —  as  between 
the  weak  and  the  strong;  safeguards  resting  upon 
the  common  will  of  Europe  —  and  I  hope  not  of 
Europe  alone  —  against  aggression,  against  inter- 
national covetousness,  against  bad  faith,  against 


82   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

wanton  recourse  in  case  of  dispute  to  the  use  of 
force  and  the  disturbance  of  the  peace."  The  Ger- 
man Imperial  Chancellor  has  said  that  the  object  of 
any  league  of  nations,  organised  to  secure  the-  peace 
of  the  world,  must  "  create  political  conditions  that 
do  full  justice  to  the  free  development  of  all  nations 
small  as  well  as  great." 

And  yet,  the  proposed  League  of  Nations  would 
not  conceive  its  mission  to  be  that  of  a  Big  Brother 
to  the  less  powerful  states.  It  would  not  take  itself 
too  seriously  as  a  palladin  of  liberty  and  justice. 
Though  ultimate  democracy  and  universal  brother- 
hood may  be  the  not  unreasonable  hope  of  the 
world,  the  League  would  not  mistake  itself  for  a 
Political  Messiah.  True  enough,  in  practice  and 
actual  operation,  it  would  be  more  than  likely  to 
recognise  and  protect  the  "  rights  "  of  small  nations 
as  against  the  "  wrongs  "  of  large  nations.  On  the 
principle  of  live  and  let  live  it  would  probably  en- 
courage small  nations  to  work  out  their  own  salva- 
tion, and  through  its  Court  and  Council  guard  them 
against  depredations.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
would  not  recognise  the  theoretical  rights  of  back- 
ward nations  to  remain  backward  and  thus  halt  the 
whole  parade  of  progress.  No  man  has  an  inalien- 
able right  to  be  a  nuisance  or  a  menace  to  the  com- 


A  LEAGUE  OF  STATES  83 

munity ;  nor  has  any  nation,  however  large  or  how- 
ever small.  They,  too,  must  get  in  step  or  get  out 
of  line. 

We  are  all  more  or  less  cabined,  cribbed  and  con- 
fined by  circumstance.  It  is  hard  to  break  with 
the  past  and  tear  ourselves  up  by  our  roots.  With 
all  of  our  boasted  freedom  of  will  and  independence 
of  mind  we  are  subject  slaves  of  the  tyrant  tradi- 
tion. It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  beginning 
of  progress,  of  "  verifiable  progress,"  probably  dates 
from  the  day  we  arose  in  rebellion  against  "  cus- 
tomary law."  *  Ibsen  tells  us  in  one  of  his  plays : 2 
"  We  are  all  of  us  ghosts.  It  is  not  only  what  we 
have  inherited  from  our  father  and  mother  that 
'  walk ?  in  us ;  it  is  all  sorts  of  dead  ideas  and  lifeless 
old  beliefs."  And  that  is  true.  We  permit  the 
corpses  of  custom  and  convention  to  remain  un- 
buried  until  they  almost  corrupt  the  world. 

Ever  since  the  founding  of  this  Republic  we  have 
interpreted  the  advice  of  Jefferson  in  his  First  In- 
augural 3  —  about  not  letting  ourselves  get  tangled 

iBagehot:  Physics  and  Politics,  Ch.  VI,  p.  132.  Alfred 
Russel  Wallace:  Letters  and  Reminiscences. 

2  Ghosts,  Act  II. 

s"  About  to  enter,  fellow  citizens,  on  the  exercise  of  duties 
which  comprehend  everything  dear  and  valuable  to  you,  it  is 
proper  that  you  should  understand  what  I  deem  the  essential 
principles  of  our  government,  and  consequently  those  which 
ought  to  shape  its  administration.  I  will  compress  them  within 
the  narrowest  compass  they  will  bear,  stating  the  general  prin- 


84   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

up  in  the  skein  of  European  alliances  l  —  to  mean 
that  we  should  "  come  out  and  be  ye  separate." 
This  is  doubtful  exegesis,  but  even  if  it  is  precisely 
what  he  meant,  it  is  hardly  pertinent  to-day.  Per- 
haps it  was  sage  counsel  for  his  day  and  generation, 
but  since  then  we  have  had  more  than  a  hundred 
years  of  comparative  freedom  from  strife  in  which 
to  work  out  our  own  salvation  —  without  either 
fear  or  trembling.  President  Wilson  undoubtedly 
had  this  advice  in  mind,  when,  on  Memorial  Bay, 
1916,  he  delivered  a  very  notable  speech  in  the 
course  of  which  he  said :  "  I  shall  never  myself 
consent  to  an  entangling  alliance,  but  would  gladly 
assent  to  a  disentangling  alliance,  an  alliance  which 
would  disentangle  the  peoples  of  the  world  from 

ciple,  but  not  all  its  limitations.  Equal  and  exact  justice  to  all 
men,  of  whatever  state  or  persuasion,  religious  or  political ; 
peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship,  with  all  nations  —  en- 
tangling alliances  with  none." —  Inauguration  Address,  March 
4,  1801. 

Much  to  the  same  purport  is  a  letter  written  to  J.  Correa  de 
Serra,  from  Mouticello,  October  24,  1820,  in  the  course  of  which 
he  said:  '*.  .  .  Nothing  is  so  important  as  that  America  shall 
separate  herself  from  the  systems  of  Europe,  and  establish  one 
of  her  own.  Our  circumstances,  our  pursuits,  our  interests,  are 
distinct,  the  principles  of  our  policy  should  be  also.  All  en- 
tanglements with  that  quarter  of  the  globe  should  be  avoided  if 
we  mean  that  peace  and  justice  shall  be  the  polar  stars  of  the 
American  societies." — The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  V<»1. 
XV.  pp.  285-7. 

i  "  A  vendetta,  whore  men  are  bound  together  to  fight  others 
and  revenge  injuries,  is  an  entangling  alliance:  a  police  force  is 
not.  It  is  to  the  latter  class  that  the  League  belongs." — A.  Law- 
rence Lowell  in  an  Article  on  "  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  "  in 
The  Xorth  American  Review  for  January,  1917. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  STATES  85 

those  combinations  in  which  they  seek  their  own 
separate  and  private  interests,  and  unite  the  peo- 
ples of  the  world  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  world 
upon  a  basis  of  common  right  and  justice.  There 
is  liberty  there,  not  limitation.  There  is  freedom, 
not  entanglement.  There  is  the  achievement  of  the 
highest  thing  for  which  the  United  States  has  de- 
clared its  principle."  Surely  this  is  a  very  differ- 
ent thing  from  endorsing  what  George  Bernard 
Shaw  calls  the  "  equilibrist  diplomacy  "  of  Euro- 
pean states. 

Here,  in  America,  we  have  not  had  time  to  feel 
lonely  in  our  "  splendid  isolation."  We  have  been 
too  busy  building  the  nation,  winning  the  West, 
and  making  the  desert  to  blossom  with  wheat.  But 
much  water  has  flowed  under  the  bridge  since 
Washington  delivered  his  Farewell  Address.1  We 

i  Because  of  the  interest  in  Washington's  advice,  in  reference 
to  its  bearing  on  the  proposal  that  the  United  States  join  a 
League  of  Nations  to  Enforce  Peace,  it  has  seemed  worth  while 
to  quote  the  passage  from  his  Address  which  dwells  upon  the  sub- 
ject: 

".  .  .  The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us,  in  regard  to  foreign  na- 
tions, is,  in  extending  our  commercial  relations,  to  have  as  little 
political  connection  with  them  as  possible.  So  far  as  we  have 
already  formed  engagements,  let  them  be  fulfilled  with  perfect 
good  faith.  Here  let  us  stop. 

"  Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests,  which  to  us  have  none, 
or  a  very  remote  relation.  Hence  she  must  be  engaged  in  fre- 
quent controversies,  the  causes  of  which  are  essentially  foreign 
to  our  concerns.  Hence,  therefore,  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  im- 
plicate ourselves,  by  artificial  ties,  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of 
her  politics,  or  the  ordinary  combinations  and  collections  of  her 
friendships  or  enmities. 


86   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

are  closer  to-day  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth 
than  New  England  was  to  the  Great  Divide  when 
the  Colonies  signed  the  original  Articles  of  Con- 
federation. The  question,  therefore,  that  presses 
for  solution  is  whether  or  not  America  shall  share 
the  responsibilities  as  well  as  enjoy  the  prestige  of 
a  world  power.  Shall  we  assume  the  risks  neces- 
sarily involved  in  becoming  one  of  the  signatory 
powers  to  a  new  kind  of  treaty?  Shall  we  quit 
being  simply  ward  politicians  and  become  world 
politicians? 

We  are  bound  to  have  to  face  this  question  sooner 
or  later;  why  not  face  it  now?  Mr.  Wilson  faced 
it  when  at  Shadow  Lawn  he  said :  "  The  world 
will  never  be  again  what  it  has  been.  The  United 
States  will  never  be  again  what  it  has  been.  The 
United  States  was  once  in  enjoyment  of  what  we 
used  to  call  splendid  isolation.  The  three  thou- 
sand miles  of  the  Atlantic  seemed  to  hold  all  Eu- 
ropean affairs  at  arm's  length  from  us.  The  great 

"  Our  detached  and  distant  situation  invites  and  enables  us 
to  pursue  a  different  course.  If  we  remain  one  people  under  an 
efficient  government,  the  period  is  not  far  off  when  we  may  defy 
material  injury  from  external  annoyance ;  when  we  may  take 
such  an  attitude  as  will  cause  the  neutrality  we  may  at  any  time 
resolve  upon,  to  be  scrupulously  respected ;  when  belligerent  na- 
tions, under  the  impossibility  of  making  acquisitions  upon  us, 
will  not  lightly  hazard  the  giving  us  provocation  ;  when  we  may 
choose  peace  or  war,  as  our  interest,  guided  by  justice,  shall 
counsel.  .  .  ." — Farewell  Address,  September  17,  1796. 


A  LEAGUE  OP  STATES  87 

spaces  of  the  Pacific  seemed  to  disclose  no  threat 
of  influence  upon  our  politics.  Now,  from  across 
the  Atlantic  and*  from  across  the  Pacific  we  feel 
to  the  quick  the  influences  which  are  affecting  our- 
selves. ...  It  does  not  suffice  to  look,  as  some 
gentlemen  are  looking,  back  over  their  shoulders, 
to  suggest  that  we  do  again  what  we  did  when  we 
were  provincial  and  isolated  and  unconnected  with 
the  great  forces  of  the  world,  for  now  we  are  in  the 
great  drift  of  humanity  which  is  to  determine  the 
politics  of  every  country  in  the  world.'' 1 

Mr.  Hamilton  Holt,  in  the  course  of  an  address 
delivered  at  the  Lake  Mohonk  Conference  on  May 
25,  1915,  said :  "  It  would  seem  to  be  the  manifest 
destiny  of  the  United  States  to  lead  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  a  league.  The  United  States  is 
the  world  in  miniature.  The  United  States  is  a 
demonstration  to  the  world  that  all  the  races  and 
peoples  of  the  earth  can  live  in  peace  under  one 
form  of  government,  and  its  chief  value  to  civilisa- 
tion is  a  demonstration  of  what  this  form  of  gov- 
ernment is.  And  when  we  get  the  League  of  Peace, 
we  shall  find  it  will  not  satisfy  the  world  any  more 
than  did  the  Articles  of  Confederation  satisfy  our 
forefathers.  As  they  had  abandoned  their  Con- 

i  November  4,  1916. 


88   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

federation  and  established  a  more  perfect  Union, 
so  we  shall  have  to  develop  our  League  of  Peace 
into  that  final  world  federation,  which,  the  his- 
torian Freeman  says,  when  it  comes  into  existence, 
will  be  the  most  finished  and  most  artificial  produc- 
tion of  political  ingenuity." 

For  America  this  is  the  cross-roads  of  destiny. 
If  some  are  still  uncertain  as  to  which  path  we 
ought  to  tread,  others  are  thoroughly  convinced 
that  we  should  turn  away  from  our  splendid  isola- 
tion and  turn  towards  a  more  splendid  fellowship 
with  all  the  progressive  nations  of  the  earth. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
A  COURT  OF  REASON 

THE  idea  of  appealing  to  reason  rather  than  to 
force  —  of  settling  vital  disputes  in  court  rooms  in- 
stead of  bloody  angles  —  is  not  novel.  Nor  is  the 
working  out  of  the  idea  in  programmes  and  propos- 
als similar  to  those  advocated  by  the  League  to  En- 
force Peace.  More  than  two  hundred  years  ago 
(1713)  the  Abbe  Castel  de  St.  Pierre  published  a 
.book  entitled  Pro  jet  de  Traite  pour  rendre  la  Paix 
Perpetuelle.  It  will  be  recalled  that  this  was  di- 
rectly after  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht  had  been  signed 
concluding  the  wars  waged  on  the  Continent  dur- 
ing the  early  years  of  the  eighteenth  century.  As 
outlined  in  this  Project,  it  was  proposed  to  or- 
ganise a  League  of  Nations  whose  members  would 
all  bind  themselves  to  uphold  and  maintain  public 
law  by  agreeing  to  the  following  six  proposals: 

1.  The  Sovereigns  are  to  contract  a  perpetual 
and  irrevocable  alliance,  and  to  name  plenipoten- 
tiaries to  hold,  in  a  determined  spirit,  a  permanent 
diet  or  congress,  in  which  all  differences  between 

89 


90   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

the  contracting  parties  are  to  be  settled  by  arbitra- 
tion or  judicial  decision. 

2.  The  number  of  the  Sovereigns  sending  pleni- 
potentiaries to  the  congress  is  to  be  specified,  to- 
gether with  those  who  are  to  be  invited  to  accede 
to  the  treaty.     The  presidency  of  the  congress  is  to 
be  exercised  by  the  Sovereigns  in  turn  at  stated 
intervals,  the  order  of  rotation  and  term  of  office 
being  carefully  defined.     In  like  manner  the  quota 
to  be  contributed  by  each  to  the  common  fund,  and 
its  method  of  collection,  are  to  be  carefully  de- 
fined. 

3.  The  Confederation  thus  formed  is  to  guar- 
antee to  each  of  its  members  the  sovereignty  of 
the  territories  it  actually  possesses,  as  well  as  the 
succession,  whether  hereditary  or  elective,  accord- 
ing to  the  fundamental  laws  of  each  Country.    To 
avoid  disputes,  actual  possession  and  the  latest 
treaties  are  to  be  taken  as  the  basis  of  the  mutual 
rights  of  the  contracting  Powers,  while  all  future 
disputes  are  to  be  settled  by  arbitration  of  the 
Diet. 

4.  The  Congress  is  to  define  the  cases  which 
would  involve  offending  States  being  put  under 
the  ban  of  Europe. 

5.  The  Powers  are  to  agree  to  arm  and  take  the 


A  COURT  OF  REASON  91 

offensive  in  common  and  at  the  common  expense, 
against  any  State  thus  banned,  until  it  shall  have 
submitted  to  the  common  will. 

6.  The  plenipotentiaries  in  congress,  on  instruc- 
tions from  their  Sovereigns,  shall  have  power  to 
make  such  rules  as  they  shall  judge  important  with 
a  view  to  securing  for  the  European  Republic  and 
each  of  its  members  all  possible  advantages. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  fifth  proposal  does  not 
differ  in  principle  from  the  third  proposal  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  —  except  that  the  League 
does  not  propose  to  enforce  awards  and  decisions, 
nor  compel  submission  of  disputes  so  long  as  ac- 
tual war  is  not  begun.  If  the  Abbe's  plan  was  not 
accepted  and  made  operative  at  once  it  was  not 
because  it  was  impractical  but  because  it  was  not 
practicable  then.  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say 
unto  you,"  said  Jesus  to  his~  impatient  disciples, 
"but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now,"  (John  16:12). 
Great  ideas,  like  great  men,  are  sometimes  born 
into  the  world  before  the  world  is  ready  for  them. 
In  1713  the  "  fulness  of  time  "  had  not  come.  But 
the  seed  that  fell  on  stony  ground  has  not  died. 
This  time  we  shall  plant  it  in  more  fertile  soil. 

Nor  was  St.  Pierre's  plan  the  only  one  evolved 
and  elaborated.  As  early  as  1623  M.  Emeric 


92   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

Cruce  l  launched  a  similar  project.  And  twenty 
years  before  St.  Pierre's  book  was  printed  William 
Penn  wrote  and  published  his  "holy  experiment 
in  civil  government "  2  which  also  contained  a  pro- 
posal to  use  military  force  against  any  sovereign 
who  refused  to  submit  a  dispute  to  an  interna- 
tional body  to  be  set  up  for  the  purpose  of  hearing 
and  deciding  international  questions.  Penn's 
plan,  like  St.  Pierre's,  included  the  enforcement  of 
compliance  with  decisions.  .  William  Ladd's  essay 
on  a  Congress  of  Nations  was  published  in  1840. 
Kant,  Bentham  and  the  elder  Rousseau  also  pro- 
mulgated similar  ideas  in  their  generation. 

Now,  at  last,  it  seems  to  be  the  consensus  of 
opinion  that  the  time  is  not  premature  for  a  defi- 
nite movement  in  the  direction  of  an  international 
understanding  and  agreement  that  will  make  for 
international  concord  and  the  lessening  of  the  like- 
lihood of  war.  Beyond  question  it  is  the  fact  that 
the  League  does  not  essay  the  impossible  which  ac- 
counts for  the  enthusiasm  with  which  it  has  been 
received  and  approved  by  practical  statesmen,  dip- 
lomats, and  men  of  affairs  all  over  the  world. 

The  fact  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 

1  See  his  book,  Le  Nouveau  Cyn6e. 

2  Essay  Toirarfl*  the  Present  and  Future  Peace  of  Europe  by 
the  Establishment  of  (in  European  Dyet.  Parliament,  or  Estates. 


A  COURT  OF  REASON  93 

has  enthusiastically  endorsed  not  only  the  central 
idea  of  a  league  of  nations  but  the  proposals  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  for  insuring  the  world 
against  future  wars  is  a  matter  of  first  importance 
to  all  Americans.  In  his  address  before  the  first 
national  convention  of  the  League  held  in  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.,  May  27,  1916,  he  said :  "  The  peace 
of  the  world  must  henceforth  depend  upon  a  new 
and  more  wholesome  diplomacy.  Only  when  the 
great  nations  of  the  world  have  reached  some  sort 
of  agreement  as  to  what  they  hold  to  be  funda- 
mental to  their  common  interest,  and  as  to  some 
feasible  method  of  acting  in  concert  when  any  na- 
tion or  group  of  nations  seeks  to  disturb  those 
fundamental  things,  can  we  feel  that  civilisation 
is  at  last  in  a  way  of  justifying  its  existence  and 
claiming  to  be  finally  established.  ...  So  sin- 
cerely do  we  believe  in  these  things  that  I  am  sure 
that  I  speak  the  mind  and  wish  of  the  people  of 
America  when  I  say  that  the  United  States  is 
willing  to  become  a  partner  in  any  feasible  associa- 
tion of  nations  formed  in  order  to  realise  these  ob- 
jects and  make  them  secure  against  violation.  .  .  . 
If  it  should  ever  be  our  privilege  to  suggest  or  in- 
itiate a  movement  for  peace  among  the  nations  now 
at  war,  I  am  sure  that  the  people  of  the  United 


94   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

States  would  wish  their  Government  to  move  along 
these  lines:  First,  such  a  settlement  with  regard 
to  their  own  immediate  interests  as  the  belliger- 
ents may  agree  upon.  We  have  nothing  material 
of  any  kind  to  ask  for  ourselves,  and  are  quite 
aware  that  we  are  in  no  sense  or  degree  parties  to 
the  present  quarrel.  Our  interest  is  only  in  peace 
and  its  future  guarantees.  Second,  an  universal 
association  of  the  nations  to  maintain  the  inviolate 
security  of  the  highway  of  the  seas  for  the  common 
and  unhindered  use  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world, 
and  to  prevent  any  war  begun  either  contrary  to 
treaty  covenants  or  without  warning  and  full  sub- 
mission of  the  causes  to  the  opinion  of  the  world, 
—  a  virtual  guarantee  of  territorial  integrity  and 
political  independence.  ...  I  feel  that  the  world 
is  even  now  upon  the  eve  of  a  great  consummation, 
when  some  common  force  will  be  brought  into  ex- 
istence which  shall  safeguard  right  as  the  first 
and  most  fundamental  interest  of  all  peoples  and 
all  governments,  when  coercion  shall  be  summoned 
not  to  the  service  of  political  ambition  or  selfish 
hostility,  but  to  the  service  of  a  common  order,  a 
common  justice,  and  a  common  peace." 

In  the  previous  chapter  it  was  pointed  out  that 
the  American  States  were  independent  and  sov- 


A  COUKT  OF  REASON  95 

ereign.  That  is  true.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they 
were  quite  as  jealous  of  their  rights  and  preroga- 
tives as  are  the  several  nations  of  Europe  to-day. 
But  the  time  came  when,  as  a  people,  we  grew  so 
thoroughly  convinced  of  the  value  of  the  Union  that 
the  majority  were  willing  to  fight  for  its  preserva- 
tion when  secession  and  disunion  threatened. 

The  principle  of  federation  involves  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  politics,  which  is  compromise. 
Compromise  is  the  price  of  peace  in  a  complex 
world  of  conflicting  interests.  It  is  the  price  we 
pay  for  happiness  and  concord.  And  this  is  as 
true  in  public  life  as  in  private  life.  Without 
reciprocity,  give  and  take,  live  and  let  live,  we 
could  have  no  family  accord,  no  business  harmony, 
no  industrial  amity,  no  social  relations  whatever. 

The  several  units  of  the  American  federation 
agreed  to  disagree  as  to  local  matters,  and  either 
to  agree  on  national  and  interstate  matters,  or 
else,  in  the  event  of  disagreement,  to  refer  the  mat- 
ter in  dispute  to  some  court  for  adjudication  and 
settlement.  The  tribunal  instituted  for  this  pur- 
pose in  America  is  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States. 

Now  it  so  happens  that  at  this  writing  there  is 
a  sharp  controversy  between  the  people  and  gov- 


96   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

eminent  of  one  of  these  states,  Virginia,  and  the 
people  and  government  of  another  state,  West  Vir- 
ginia, over  the  question  of  whether  or  not  West 
Virginia  shall  pay  its  share  of  the  original  debt 
of  old  Virginia,  amounting  to  more  than  twelve 
million  dollars.1  Between  any  two  European 
States  this  might  very  possibly  constitute  a  casus 
belli.  The  reason  why  the  borders  of  these  states 
are  not  bristling  with  bayonets,  the  reason  why 
their  citizens  are  not  arrayed  in  serried  ranks 
along  the  frontiers,  is  not  because  Americans  are 
any  better  than  Europeans,  nor  because  Virginians 
are  any  more  just  or  sober  than  Frenchmen.  It  is 
because  the  machinery  is  all  set-up  and  oiled  for 
the  settlement  of  just  such  disputes.  The  matter 
has  gone  before  the  United  States  Supreme  Court, 
behind  which  is  the  "  sanction  "  not  only  of  public 
confidence  (not  earned  by  one  decision,  either), 
but  also,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  potential  strength 
of  the  entire  nation,  of  all  the  separate  and  several 
states,  to  back  up  the  national  will.  There,  at 
Washington,  the  issue  will  in  all  likelihood  be  set- 
tled, not  amidst  the  clamour  of  battle,  but  in  the 
tranquil  atmosphere  of  reason;  not  by  fists,  but 
by  facts ;  not  by  war,  but  by  law.  That  something 

i  The  exact  amount  of  the  award  was  $12,393,000. 


A  COURT  OF  REASON  97 

not  unlike  this  may  be  brought  to  pass  among  the 
nations  of  the  world,  both  as  to  federation  and 
arbitration,  is  the  ardent  hope  of  many  forward- 
looking  men  in  all  the  leading  countries. 

Back  of  federation  is  arbitration.  Here  again, 
as  was  found  to  be  true  of  federation,  the  principle 
itself  is  not  novel  or  even  experimental.  It  has 
been  planted  and  has  thrived  in  many  fields  of  so- 
cial activity.  The  present  purpose  is  simply  to 
extend  the  application  of  the  principle  to  inter- 
national relations.  It  is  seldom  or  never  true  that 
an  issue  is  so  sharply  drawn  between  right  and 
wrong  that  there  is  absolutely  nothing  to  arbi- 
trate. Prejudice  and  willful  misunderstanding 
are  responsible  for  many  of  the  conflicts  of  his- 
tory. Surely  it  is  as  absurd  to  attempt  to  deter- 
mine the  right  or  wrong  of  a  given  matter  by 
ordeal  of  battle  as  it  is  to  judge  the  guilt  or  in- 
nocence of  an  alleged  witch  by  trial  by  fire. 

Perhaps  we  need  once  more  to  be  reminded  — 
even  though  the  analogy  may  not  go  on  all  fours 
—  that  the  time  was  when  individuals  took  the 
settlement  of  their  grievances  in  their  own  hands, 
and  the  code  duello  was  everywhere  in  vogue.  In 
the  tenth  century  "  trial  by  battle  "  was  fully  sanc- 
tioned by  the  State.  The  disputants  went  out  into 


98   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

the  public  field  and  fought  it  out.  The  Judge  by 
law  was  obliged  to  adjourn  court  and  render  a 
verdict  in  favour  of  the  winner.  In  the  early  days 
in  America  the  ethics  of  frontier  life  gave  to  the 
buckskin  pioneer  the  right  to  use  a  handy  revolver 
in  settling  his  dispute  with  an  adversary.  We  had 
six-shooter  diplomacy  in  America  long  before  we 
had  shirt-sleeve  diplomacy,  and  Colonel  Bowie  was 
more  popular  in  those  days  than  Machiavelli.  As 
these  outlying  communities  became  more  thickly 
populated,  and  grew  more  "  civilised,"  the  dis- 
putants took  their  quarrels  to  an  established  court 
for  settlement.  Much  the  same  thing  was  true 
as  to  controversies  between  families,  groups,  com- 
munities, and  states.  Compulsory  arbitration  is 
never  welcomed  by  the  party  that  knows  itself  to 
be  in  the  wrong,  nor  feared  by  the  party  that  is 
sure  of  the  righteousness  of  its  cause.  Before 
long  the  sanction  of  society  and  the  approval  of 
mankind  will  be  given  to  this  principle  of  arbitra- 
tion, as  among  the  nations  of  the  world. 

In  his  introduction  to  Mr.  Woolfs  splendid 
book,1  Mr.  George  Bernard  Shaw  says,  "  In  the 
territories  of  the  United  States,  pioneered  by  men 
quite  as  civilised  by  teaching  and  traditon  as  their 

iL.  S.  Woolf,  International  Oovernment,  p.  XVI. 


A  COURT  OF  REASON  99 

cousins  in  London  and  Brighton,  the  revolver  and 
the  bowie  knife  reigned  where  the  sheriff  and  the 
vigilance  committee  fell  short.  And  the  sixteen- 
inch  gun  and  the  submarine  torpedo  reign  in  Eu- 
rope at  present  solely  because  there  is  no  super- 
national  sheriff  or  vigilance  committee  to  adjust 
the  disputes  of  nations." 

Nor  is  the  application  of  the  principle  of  arbi- 
tration novel  in  international  relations.  Two  Tri- 
bunals have  been  established  to  decide  such  con- 
troversies as  arise  from  time  to  time  between  the 
United  States  and  Canada;  one  to  deal  with 
such  questions  as  boundary  waters  and  the  other 
with  claims  between  the  citizens  of  the  two  coun- 
tries. 

It  will  surprise  many  to  know  that  no  less  than 
thirteen  cases  have  been  decided  by  The  Hague  Tri- 
bunal and  that  about  two  hundred  arbitrations 
took  place  between  1815  and  1900.1  It  will  be 
said  that  these  were  relatively  unimportant  mat- 
ters ;  that  nations  do  not  and  will  not  submit  ques- 
tions of  honor  or  vital  interest.  In  the  main,  it 

i  W.  Evans  Darby  in  a  Supplement  to  his  International  Tri- 
bunals entitled  Modern  Pacific  Settlements,  lists  477  cases  be- 
tween 1794  and  1900.  It  is  estimated  that  there  have  been 
about  200  since  1900  and  that  there  were  82  or  83  before  1794, 
making  a  total  of  960.  Two  hundred  and  nine  arbitration  treat- 
ies were  in  force  in  1914  when  the  war  broke  out. 


100  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

is  true  that  the  questions  referred  to  the  Inter- 
national Tribunal  for  consideration  (for  without 
the  "  sanction  "  provided  for  in  the  League's  pro- 
gramme an  International  Tribunal  could  do  little 
more  than  consider  matters  voluntarily  sub- 
mitted) were  of  minor  importance  and  did  not  in- 
volve in  any  way  the  prerogatives  of  sovereignty. 
But  surely  the  Dogger  Banks  Fisheries  case  was 
a  question  of  "  honour."  Those  who  know  say  that 
England,  particularly  London,  was  stirred  with 
indignation  and  excitement  as  it  seldom  has  been. 
The  action  of  Admiral  Rozhdestvensky,  in  firing 
on  the  trawlers,  sinking  the  Crane,  wounding  six 
fishermen,  and  killing  two,  was  described  as  "  an 
unspeakable  and  unparalleled  and  cruel  outrage." 
The  findings  and  indemnity  (£65,000)  of  the  In- 
ternational Commission  of  Inquiry  was  accepted 
and  the  dispute  was  at  an  end.1 

The  execution  of  the  first  proposal  of  the  League 
would  mean  the  setting-up  of  an  International 
Judicial  Tribunal  to  interpret  existing  treaties 
and  to  administer  the  existing  international  law. 
The  Hon.  William  Howard  Taft,  President  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace,  has  pointed  out  that  a 

i  For  a  more  detailed  statement  of  the  issues  involved  in  this 
celebrated  case  see  Appendix,  page  303. 


A  COUKT  OF  REASON  101 

Court  to  administer  international  justice  is  not 
new.  In  an  address  delivered  before  the  National 
Educational  Association  at  Madison  Square  Gar- 
den, New  York,  on  July  3d,  1916,  he  said,  referring 
to  this  proposal,  that  "  the  proposal  is  practical 
and  is  justified  by  precedent.  The  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  exercising  the  jurisdiction 
conferred  on  it  by  the  Court,  sits  as  a  permanent 
international  tribunal  to  decide  issues  between  the 
States  of  the  Union.  From  time  to  time  questions 
arise  between  States  not  settled  by  the  Federal 
Constitution  or  Federal  statutes.  Take  the  case 
of  Kansas  against  Colorado,  heard  and  decided  by 
the  Supreme  Court.  Kansas  sued  Colorado,  com- 
plaining that  Colorado  was  using  for  irrigation 
the  Arkansas  River  running  through  both  States, 
so  as  to  deprive  Kansas  of  its  use.  Congress  had 
no  power  to  control  Colorado.  The  case  was  de- 
cided, not  by  a  law  of  Congress,  not  by  the  law 
of  Kansas,  not  by  the  law  of  Colorado,  for  the  law 
of  neither  applied.  It  wras  decided  by  the  prin- 
ciple of  International  Law.  It  was  International 
Law  alone  that  fixed  the  lines  between  the  States 
and  the  Supreme  Court  enforced  them."  l 

The  Wilson-Bryan  treaties,  accepted  in  principle 

i  See  also  the  first  of  the  Taft-Bryan  debates. 


102  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

by  thirty-three  nations,  signed  by  thirty  nations 
and  ratified  by  twenty  nations  up  to  this  writ- 
ing, are  really  an  application  of  the  idea  of  a  Com- 
mission of  Inquiry,  concerning  which  we  shall 
have  somewhat  to  say  in  the  following  chapter. 
But  because  of  the  likeness,  as  well  as  the  differ- 
ence, between  the  central  principle  of  all  these 
treaties  and  the  essential  idea  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  (dilatory  treatment)  it  seems  desir- 
able to  quote  the  articles  of  one  of  these  treaties 
at  this  point.  Save  for  a  few  changes  introduced 
into  the  treaties  with  the  Netherlands  and  with 
Great  Britain,  all  the  treaties  signed  are  identic, 
mutatis  mutandis. 

ARTICLE  I.  The  high  contracting  parties  agree 
that  all  disputes  between  them,  of  every  nature 
whatsoever,  which  diplomacy  shall  fail  to  adjust, 
shall  be  submitted  for  investigation  and  report  to 
an  International  Commission,  to  be  constituted  in 
the  manner  prescribed  in  the  next  succeeding 
Article;  and  they  agree  not  to  declare  war  or 
begin  hostilities  during  such  investigation  and 
report. 

ARTICLE  II.  The  International  Commission 
shall  be  composed  of  five  members,  to  be  appointed 
as  follows:  One  member  shall  be  chosen  from 


A  COURT  OF  REASON  103 

each  country,  by  the  Government  thereof;  one 
member  shall  be  chosen  by  each  Government  from 
some  third  country;  the  fifth  member  shall  be 
chosen  by  common  agreement  between  the  two 
Governments  in  equal  proportion.  The  Interna- 
tional Commission  shall  be  appointed  within  four 
months  after  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of 
this  treaty ;  and  vacancies  shall  be  filled  according 
to  the  manner  of  the  original  appointment. 

ARTICLE  III.  In  case  the  high  contracting 
parties  shall  have  failed  to  adjust  a  dispute  by 
diplomatic  methods,  they  shall  at  once  refer  it  to 
the  International  Commission  for  investigation  and 
report.  The  International  Commission  may,  how- 
ever, act  upon  its  own  initiative,  and  in  such  case  it 
shall  notify  both  Governments  and  request  their 
co-operation  in  the  investigation.  The  report  of 
the  International  Commission  shall  be  completed 
within  one  year  after  the  date  on  which  it  shall 
declare  its  investigation  to  have  begun,  unless  the 
high  contracting  parties  shall  extend  the  time  by 
mutual  agreement.  The  report  shall  be  prepared 
in  triplicate;  one  copy  shall  be  presented  to  each 
Government,  and  the  third  retained  by  the  Com- 
mission for  its  files.  The  high  contracting  parties 
reserve  the  right  to  act  independently  on  the  sub- 


104  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ject-iiiatter  of  the  dispute  after  the  report  of  the 
Commission  shall  have  been  submitted. 

ARTICLE  IV.  Pending  the  investigation  and  re- 
port of  the  International  Commission,  the  high 
contracting  parties  agree  not  to  increase  their 
military  or  naval  programmes,  unless  danger  from 
a  third  power  should  compel  such  increase,  in  which 
case  the  party  feeling  itself  menaced  shall  con- 
fidentially communicate  the  fact  in  writing  to  the 
other  contracting  party,  whereupon  the  latter  shall 
also  be  released  from  its  obligation  to  maintain 
its  military  and  naval  status  quo. 

ARTICLE  V.  The  present  treaty  shall  be  ratified 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate 
thereof;  and  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  of 
Salvador,  with  the  approval  of  the  Congress 
thereof;  and  the  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged 
as  soon  as  possible.  It  shall  take  effect  immedi- 
ately after  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  and  shall 
continue  in  force  for  a  period  of  five  years;  and 
it  shall  thereafter  remain  in  force  until  twelve 
months  after  one  of  the  high  contracting  parties 
have  given  notice  to  the  other  of  an  intention  to 
terminate  it. 


CHAPTER  IX 
A  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS 

To  say  that  it  is  none  of  our  business  how  the 
other  half  lives  is  to  invite  disaster.  It  isn't 
necessary  to  discuss  the  ethical  question:  Am  I 
my  brother's  keeper?  We  are  not  especially  in- 
terested right  now  in  what  Mazzini  calls  the  phi- 
losophy of  Cain.  To-day  it  is  as  true  in  respect 
to  the  relations  between  nations  as  it  is  in  respect 
to  the  relations  between  groups  and  classes  within 
a  nation, —  that  the  outside  public  is  no  longer  an 
"  innocent  bystander."  We  are  a  part  of  the  con- 
troversy and  are  driven  by  the  exigencies  of 
modern  life  to  take  sides  in  practically  every  issue. 
To  remain  parochial  and  live  a  sequestered  life 
of  ease  apart  in  this  age  of  hourly  newspapers  and 
of  radiograms,  of  common  wants  and  of  common 
sources  of  supply,  it  would  be  necessary  to  build 
a  cabin  and  dwell  in  the  backwoods. 

"  There  must  be  a  just  and  settled  peace,"  said 
the  President  of  the  United  States  in  his  Speech 

105 


106  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

of  Acceptance,1  "and  we  here  in  America  must 
contribute  the  full  force  of  our  enthusiasm  and  of 
our  authority  as  a  nation  to  the  organisation  of 
that  peace  upon  world-wide  foundations  that  can- 
not easily  be  shaken.  No  nation  should  be  forced 
to  take  sides  in  any  quarrel  in  which  its  own 
honour  and  integrity  and  the  fortunes  of  its  own 
people  are  not  involved;  but  no  nation  can  any 
longer  remain  neutral  as  against  any  willful  dis- 
turbance of  the  peace  of  the  world.  The  effects 
of  war  can  no  longer  be  confined  to  the  areas  of 
battle.  No  nation  stands  wholly  apart  in  interest 
when  the  life  and  interests  of  all  nations  are 
thrown  into  confusion  and  peril.  If  hopeful  and 
generous  enterprise  is  to  be  renewed,  if  the  healing 
and  helpful  arts  of  life  are  indeed  to  be  revived 
when  peace  comes  again,  a  new  atmosphere  of 
justice  and  friendship  must  be  generated  by  means 
the  world  has  never  tried  before.  The  nations  of 
the  world  must  unite  in  joint  guarantees  that 
whatever  is  done  to  disturb  the  whole  world's  life 
must  first  be  tested  in  the  whole  world's  court  of 
opinion  before  it  is  attempted." 

The  time  has  indeed  arrived  when  it  has  become 

i  Reply  to  the  formal  notification  of  his  renomination.    Read 
at  Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  September  2,  1916. 


A  CONGKESS  OF  NATIONS  107 

almost,  if  not  altogether,  as  impossible  for  us  to 
remain  neutral  in  reference  to  international  con- 
troversies as  it  is  for  us  to  continue  neutral  with 
reference  to  industrial  quarrels  and  disputes  in 
domestic  affairs.  With  all  the  marvellous  im- 
provements in  aerial  navigation,  it  is  not  prac- 
ticable for  any  neutral  nation  to  pick  up,  bag  and 
baggage,  and  move  to  another  planet.  Nations 
that  happen  for  the  moment  to  be  neutral  nations 
are  as  much  concerned  as  are  the  belligerents  in 
the  paramount  question  of  whether  this  world  of 
ours  is  to  be  a  world  of  fire-sides  or  firing-lines,  of 
factories  or  fortresses,  of  wheat-fields  or  battle- 
fields. 

If  the  way  of  the  neutral  is  particularly  hard 
to-day,  there  is  a  reason  for  it.  It  is  very  largely 
because  the  material  conditions  of  current  life,  the 
machinery  of  industry,  commerce,  and  finance, 
have  changed  more  rapidly  than  the  political  ma- 
chinery—  and  the  mental  outlook  of  most  people. 
In  spite  of  the  pressing  need,  we  have  not  yet  de- 
veloped an  "  international  mind,"  nor  have  we  in- 
vented and  constructed  machinery  that  will  operate 
both  quickly  and  smoothly  in  adjusting  interna- 
tional misunderstandings  and  disagreements. 

The  fact  of  interdependence  among  the  nations 


108  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

has  become  so  clearly  apparent  as  to  need  no  prov- 
ing. The  masses  of  the  people  the  world  over 
receive  to-day  almost  identical  education.  Sim- 
ilar religious  beliefs  prevail  everywhere.  All 
have  practically  the  same  access  to  sources  of 
knowledge  and  information.  The  same  sorts  of 
papers  are  read  all  over  the  world.  And  not  only 
do  the  people  of  one  country  read  about  the  people 
of  another  country,  but  they  visit  them,  which 
means  an  interchange  of  culture.  What  is  grown 
in  one  hemisphere  is  often  eaten  in  another.  The 
spirit  of  the  age  is  a  sounding  board  that  carries 
the  voice  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  world,  thus 
providing,  in  effect,  an  international  audience. 
Competent  writers  are  now  able  to  reach  millions 
where  once  they  could  not  hope  to  address  more 
than  hundreds.  There  are  international  organiza- 
tions of  labour  and  international  congresses  of 
every  description.  It  is  almost  a  fad  to  study 
foreign  languages  and  conditions  in  groups  and 
societies  and  clubs.  The  results  of  scientific  re- 
search and  political  and  sociological  experience 
are,  by  means  of  the  new  machinery  of  intercourse, 
made  at  once  available.  If  any  question  remains 
as  to  the  interdependence  of  modern  nations,  it 
ought  to  be  enough  to  point  to  the  way  the  war 


A  CONGEESS  OF  NATIONS  109 

itself  has  spread  from  land  to  land,  almost  around 
the  entire  circuit  of  the  globe.1 

But,  some  one  may  ask,  What  has  all  this  to  do 
with  the  second  Proposal  of  the  League's  pro- 
gramme, which  is  what  we  have  under  consideration 
in  this  chapter?  It  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with 
it;  for  it  means  that  the  causes  of  conflict  to-day 
are  not  what  they  were  yesterday.  The  jealousies 
and  petty  personal  quarrels  of  reigning  dynastic 
Houses  are  not  the  real  reasons  why  modern  na- 
tions fight.  Out  of  new  conditions  new  problems 
have  arisen.  These  new  problems  flow  from  the 
fact  that  the  world  is  becoming  more  and  more  of 
a  parish — "a  great  community,"  to  employ  the 
happy  phrase  of  the  late  Professor  Koyce.  These 
problems  have  to  do  with  fears  about  disturbing 
the  balance  of  power,  with  debates  about  spheres 
of  influence,  with  discrimination  as  to  immigration 
exclusion,  with  the  unquenchable  desire  for  a  place 
in  the  sun,  and  so  forth.  To-day,  nations  are 
neighbours,  and  friendship  is  not  fostered  by  tariff 
walls  any  more  than  by  spite  fences.  We  have 
simply  got  to  learn  to  live  together  —  since  we 
must.  The  international  problem  is,  after  all, 

iThis  paragraph  paraphrases  an  Article  by  Sydney  Brooks 
on  "  The  Dream  of  Universal  Peace  "  in  Harper's  Magazine  for 
November,  1916. 


110     A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

nothing  more  than  the  social  problem  on  a  grand 
scale.  The  proposed  Council  of  Conciliation, 
which  would  probably  be  composed  of  represen- 
tative statesmen,  publicists,  financiers  and  men  of 
affairs,  would  be,  in  character  and  purpose,  not  so 
very  different  from  Commissions  of  Inquiry  with 
which  we  are  already  more  or  less  familiar.  Its 
principal  duty  would  be  to  investigate,  with  a  view 
to  discovering,  the  essential  facts,  to  deduce  con- 
clusions from  these  facts,  and  then  to  make  recom- 
mendations to  the  parties  at  variance. 

The  League  does  not  propose  to  enter  into  argu- 
ment with  those  who  urge  the  desirability  of  a 
World  Court  whose  decisions  are  mandatory  and 
of  an  International  Legislature  with  authority  to 
lay  down  the  law  for  all;  it  merely  says  that  we 
should  not  attempt  too  much  at  once.  The  new 
idealist  is  very  different  from  the  old  idealist  who 
built  his  air  castles  without  substantial  founda- 
tions on  the  solid  ground.  He  has  only  an  aca- 
demic interest  in  Utopias  and  reads  Plato  and 
More  and  Morris  more  for  entertainment  than  in- 
struction. And  that  is  why  the  proposal  for  a 
Council  of  Conciliation  is  at  most  but  a  tentative 
step  towards  what  may  ultimately  prove  to  be  a 
sort  of  international  court  for  the  amicable  settle- 


A  CONGKESS  OF  NATIONS  111 

ment  of  all  political  troubles  that  carry  the  seeds 
of  pregnant  war. 

It  isn't  all  going  to  be  smooth  sailing.  And  if 
the  details  are  not  discussed  here  more  fully  it  is 
not  because  they  are  being  ignored  or  are  consid- 
ered in  any  sense  trivial.  Such  details  as  the 
number  and  character  of  the  personnel  of  such  a 
Council,  and  precisely  how  it  will  function  in  a 
crisis,  are  questions  of  the  first  magnitude.  But 
first  of  all,  the  idea  must  be  grasped  and  accepted. 
After  that  the  obstacles  in  the  way  will  not  prove 
insurmountable. 

It  may  be  well  to  remind  ourselves  at  this  junc- 
ture that  the  idea  of  a  Commission  of  Inquiry  for 
the  purposes  both  of  ascertaining  the  facts  and  of 
postponing  hostilities  with  the  hope  that  dilatory 
treatment  will  heal  the  wound,  is  not  novel.1  The 
First  Hague  Convention  (1899)  for  the  Pacific 
Settlement  of  International  Disputes  created  an 
International  Commission  of  Inquiry  of  which 
Article  IX  reads  as  follows: 

i  Professor  Frederic  de  Martens,  the  jurisconsult  of  the  Rus- 
sian ministry  of  foreign  affairs,  is  credited  with  having  first 
suggested  the  idea  in  connection  with  international  relations, 
but  Darby  lists  no  less  than  118  "  mixed  commissions  "  in  the 
nineteenth  century  and  250  conciliation  cases  in  the  nineteenth 
and  twentieth  centuries.  Mixed  commissions  did  not  differ 
greatly  from  what  are  now  called  International  Commissions 
of  Inquiry. 


112   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

"  In  disputes  of  an  international  nature  involv- 
ing neither  honour  nor  vital  interests,  and  arising 
from  a  difference  of  opinion  on  points  of  fact,  the 
contracting  powers  deem  it  expedient  and  desir- 
able that  the  parties  who  have  not  been  able  to 
come  to  an  agreement  by  means  of  diplomacy, 
should,  as  far  as  circumstances  allow,  institute  an 
International  Commission  of  Inquiry,  to  facilitate 
a  solution  of  these  disputes  by  elucidating  the  facts 
by  means  of  an  impartial  and  conscientious  in- 
vestigation." 

Perhaps  it  will  be  urged  that  all  this  is  very 
interesting,  but  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Hague 
Conventions,  with  their  International  Commissions 
of  Inquiry,  et  cetera,  completely  failed  to  prevent 
this  present  war  and  that  therefore  such  conven- 
tions are  quite  worthless.  Yet  before  the  war  the 
Hague  Court  had  been  appealed  to  no  less  than  thir- 
teen times  by  different  nations  and  proved  to  be 
a  satisfactory  method  of  adjustment  every  time. 
Also  it  is  important  to  make  it  clear  that  no  au- 
thority was  given  The  Hague  (as  Professor  de  Mar- 
tens urged  should  be  given)  "for  fixing,  if  pos- 
sible, the  responsibility  for  the  facts,"  nor  was  any 
arrangement  made  for  requiring  the  submission  of 
the  matters  of  dispute  other  than  by  verbal  agree- 


A  CONGRESS  OP  NATIONS  113 

ment.1  The  League  wants  these  matters  sub- 
mitted and  discussed  and  would  not  halt  at  "  fixing 
the  responsibility,"  but  it  is  not  ready  to  trust 
nations  voluntarily  to  submit  all  questions  of  every 
nature,  including  points  of  honour,  vital  interests, 
and  so  forth,  and  that  is  why  specific  provision  is 
made  for  the  institution  of  a  Council  completely 
qualified  to  handle  such  issues  as  arise  that  can- 
not be  determined  by  the  established  principles  of 
international  law.  It  also  explains  why  pro- 
vision is  made  in  the  Third  Proposal  of  the  League's 
programme  for  coercion  and  compulsion,  for  the 
employment  of  economic  pressure  and  military  force 
to  require  the  submission  of  questions  in  dispute 
before  any  nation-member  actually  goes  to  war  or 
commits  acts  of  hostility  against  another  nation- 
member. 

In  a  great  number  of  cases  the  Council  of  Con- 
ciliation would  be  called  upon  to  act  as  a  Court 
of  Inquiry  or,  it  may  be,  it  would  in  practice  be 
deemed  expedient  by  the  Council  as  a  whole  to 
select  from  its  members  a  special  Investigation 
Committee  whose  sole  duty  it  would  be  to  ascer- 
tain and  elucidate  the  facts.  Sometimes  these 
facts  would  be  events  and  sometimes  they  would 

i  See  Hull's  The  Second  Hague  Conference,  p.  291. 


114   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

be  motives.  It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  such 
an  International  Commission  of  Inquiry  would 
have  its  hands  full,  especially  when  it  came  to 
exploring  for  motives  and  intentions.  The  task 
would  be,  as  Dr.  Talcott  Williams  has  said,  "a 
very  difficult  assignment  to  cover."  But  munic- 
ipal courts  tackle  the  problem  every  day. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  integrity  of  such 
a  Commission  would  have  to  be  as  high  above 
suspicion  and  as  far  removed  from  prejudice  as 
the  Judicial  Tribunal,  though  constituted  of  men 
of  quite  different  training  and  temper.  If  the 
temperament  of  judges  would  need  to  be  judicial, 
then  the  temperament  of  these  investigators  would 
need  to  be  scientific.  They  would  need  to  keep 
constantly  in  mind  the  admonition  of  an  old 
French  scientist,  "  You  must  use  the  utmost  care, 
or  you  will  find  what  you  are  looking  for."  l 

It  is  highly  probable  that  the  Council  would  ap- 
point from  among  its  membership  an  Executive 
Committee,  or  Ministry  to  the  League,  which 
would  be  vested  with  authority  to  act,  or  at  least 
with  authority  to  say  to  the  several  nation-mem- 
bers of  the  League :  "  The  hour  has  struck  when 

i  Quoted  by  Montrose  J.  Moses  in  his  Maurice  Maeterlinck: 
A  Study. 


A  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS  115 

you  should  call  your  armies  into  the  field  to  fulfil 
the  obligations  of  your  treaty."  Just  what  degree 
of  authority  would  be  conferred  upon  this  quasi- 
cabinet,  quite  certain  to  be  made  up  of  the  direct 
representatives  of  the  rulers  of  the  great  powers, 
and  just  how  its  members  would  be  elected  or  ap- 
pointed, are  matters  that  must  be  decided  later  on, 
probably  at  an  international  conference. 

How  much  of  a  law-making  body  the  Council 
would  turn  out  to  be  in  actual  practice,  by  virtue 
of  its  awards,  decisions  and  conclusions,  is  as  yet 
problematic.  It  could  hardly,  in  justice,  actually 
make  laws  for  the  whole  world  unless  all  the  na- 
tions in  the  world  were  represented.  And  it  is  not 
as  yet  finally  decided  whether  or  not  to  include  in 
the  League  the  so-called  "backward  states." 
Many  urge  that  to  do  so  would  be  to  throw  the 
door  wide  open  for  every  sort  of  local  quarrel  be- 
coming the  occasion  of  a  world  war.  It  seems  more 
likely  that  legislative  functions  will  be  assumed  by 
the  International  Assembly  to  be  set  up.  This  mat- 
ter is  fully  discussed  in  the  following  chapter. 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  AGE  OF  DISCUSSION 

WE  are  living  in  what  Bagehot  has  called  "  the 
age  of  discussion  "  and  it  is  a  sad  anomaly  that 
we  should  be  so  willing  to  give  power  of  attorney 
to  fighting  men  to  do  our  thinking  for  us.  Bay- 
onets are  prejudiced  judges,  and  matters  of  mo- 
ment ought  not  to  be  debated  in  bloody  forums  by 
machine  guns.  Great  policies  should  be  thought 
out  and  wrought  out  —  not  fought  out.  This  is 
more  than  an  epigram ;  it  is  a  truth.  Only  rarely 
in  history  do  issues  arise  when  war  appears  to  be 
the  one  and  only  way  out  of  a  difficult  situation. 
There  is  no  panacea  that,  over-night,  will  cure 
the  world  of  the  red  plague  of  war.  The  political 
body  is  so  permeated  with  the  poison  that  it  may 
take  decades,  or  centuries,  to  get  it  out  of  the  social 
system.  But  if  the  job  is  one  that  cannot  be  done 
on  a  Saturday  half-holiday,  that  is  only  an  added 
reason  why  treatment  should  no  longer  be  post- 
poned. A  diagnosis  shows  that  the  causes  of 

116 


THE  AGE  OF  DISCUSSION  117 

war l  are  not  obscure :  Arbitrary  authority,  im- 
perial ambitions,  the  need  of  room  for  expansion, 
commercial  greed,  false  doctrines  of  prestige, 
patriotism,  sovereignty,  and  so  forth.  What  is 
wanted  now  is  that  the  leaves  on  the  tree  of  our 
political  life  shall  be  for  the  healing  of  the  nations. 
To  speak  plainly,  and  without  metaphor,  what  is 
desperately  needed  is  an  authoritative  body  to 
translate  contemporary  international  morality 
into  the  terms  of  international  law.  A  repre- 
sentative body  should  assemble  periodically  for 
the  purpose  of  revising  old,  and  making  new,  rules 
of  conduct  for  the  guidance  of  the  society  of 
nations. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  contemporary  inter- 
national morality:  for  there  are  fashions  in  mor- 
als—  sartor  resartus.  Social  character  appears 
to  be  as  much  an  attainment  as  individual  char- 
acter. Social  morality  is  not  fixed  and  stable. 
Its  gradual  growth  is  dependent  on  the  slow  evo- 
lution of  conscience.  The  light  that  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world  was  once 
as  dim  as  a  glow-worm.  Writing  on  this  interest- 
ing subject,  Walter  Bagehot  tells  us,  in  a  familiar 

i  Some  of  the  causes  of  modern  war  are  discussed  at  length  in 
Part  III  of  this  book. 


118  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

passage  in  his  Physics  and  Politics*  that 
"  there  are  many  savages  who  can  hardly  be  said 
to  care  for  human  life,  who  have  scarcely  the  fam- 
ily feelings,  who  are  eager  to  kill  all  old  people 
(their  parents  included)  as  soon  as  they  get  old 
and  become  a  burden,  who  have  scarcely  the  sense 
of  truth,  whose  ideas  of  marriage  are  so  vague  and 
slight  that  they  practice  '  communal  marriage '  in 
which  all  the  women  of  the  tribe  are  common  to 
all  the  men.  If  any  reasoning  is  safe  as  to  pre- 
historic man,  the  reason  which  imputes  to  him  a 
deficient  sense  of  morals  is  safe.  ...  It  is  not  now 
maintained  that  all  men  have  the  same  amount  of 
conscience.  Indeed,  only  a  most  shallow  dispu- 
tant who  did  not  understand  even  the  plainest  facts 
of  human  nature  could  ever  have  maintained  it; 
if  men  differ  in  anything  they  differ  in  the  fineness 
and  the  delicacy  of  their  moral  intuitions." 
There  is  no  denying  the  fact  that  there  are  chang- 
ing styles  in  social  ethics. 

And  what  is  the  reaction  of  the  common  con- 
science of  the  world  to  this  present  war?  If  it 
were  possible  to  take  a  picture  of  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  men  and  women  everywhere  to-day  we 
should  doubtless  discover  from  the  composite 

i  Chapter  IV,  p.  72. 


THE  AGE  OF  DISCUSSION  119 

photograph  that  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men, 
on  farms,  in  shops,  and  at  the  battle-fronts;  men 
and  women ;  belligerents  and  neutrals ;  the  soldiers 
in  the  trenches  and  the  citizens  at  home, —  that  the 
vast  majority  of  them  are  opposed  to  war.  This 
is  not  to  say  that  the  movement  towards  universal 
peace  is  necessarily  going  to  be  greatly  advanced 
on  account  of  the  present  war.  In  all  probability 
it  will  be.  But  right  now  we  know  very  little 
about  that,  and  should  not  permit  ourselves  to  for- 
get that  the  peace  movement  in  this  country,  which 
by  1860  had  gained  considerable  headway,  was  set 
back  perhaps-  a  quarter  of  a  century  by  the  Civil 
War.  This  present  war  is  quite  as  likely  to  retard 
as  to  advance  the  movement  towards  peace.  Much 
depends  on  the  final  terms  of  settlement. 

There  never  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  the 
world  when  community  sentiment  and  popular 
opinion,  when  the  moral  reaction  of  mankind, 
meant  so  much  as  to-day.  If  proof  were  needed 
for  this  assertion  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  way  that 
favourable  and  friendly  opinion  is  sought,  solic- 
ited, cajoled  and  purchased;  begged,  borrowed, 
stolen  and  manufactured.  This  thing,  public 
opinion,  is  difficult  enough  to  assay  and  measure, 
and  yet,  there  it  is,  as  powerful  as  gravity,  as  force- 


120     A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

fill  as  radium,  as  real  as  cohesion,  as  weighty  as 
the  pressure  of  atmosphere,  fourteen  and  seven- 
tenths  pounds  to  the  square  inch.  The  assiduous 
cultivation  of  public  conviction  and  sentiment  is 
no  small  labour.  Those  that  have  entrusted  to 
them  the  tremendous  task  of  re-establishing  peace 
on  a  more  solid  foundation  at  the  close  of  this  war, 
cannot  possibly  be  deaf  to  the  authoritative  com- 
mands of  their  contemporaries.  The  sovereign 
authority  that  resides  in  public  opinion  can  be 
ignored  only  with  peril.  The  social  judgment 
must  be  consulted  and  the  social  will  obeyed. 
But  this  will  be  just  as  imperative  in  all.  the  years 
to  come,  after  the  war,  as  immediately  at  its  close. 
Therefore  an  institution  must  be  permanently  set 
up  and  dedicated  to  progress.  The  Palace  of 
Peace  must  be  re-christened  the  Palace  of  Justice. 
How  do  we  know  that  the  time  has  at  last  come 
when  the  common  conscience  of  the  world  is  restive 
so  long  as  war  persists;  that  the  public  opinion 
of  the  world  is  arrayed  in  determined  opposition 
to  war?  We  do  not  know ;  not  as  a  positive  cer- 
tainty. We  are,  however,  fairly  sure  that  men  and 
women  have  seriously  investigated  the  problem  of 
war  and  appraised  its  cost  and  value.  And  we  are 
reasonably  confident  that  after  this  careful  in- 


THE  AGE  OF  DISCUSSION  121 

vestigation  and  honest  appraisal  their  minds  are 
practically  made  up  on  this  issue.  The  majority 
of  people  everywhere  feel  and  think  that  the  apol- 
ogists for  war  have  miserably  failed  to  make  their 
case.  The  survey  of  the  problem  from  every  view- 
point has  only  strengthened  the  case  for  civilisa- 
tion. No  wonder  the  nations  are  asking,  What 
must  we  do  to  be  saved?  Saved  from  the  awful 
waste  of  men  and  money!  Saved  from  poignant 
sorrow  and  immemorial  woe!  Saved  from  the 
folly  and  futility  of  war!  It  is  not  going  to  be 
possible  to  legislate  war  out  of  the  world  by  an 
executive  proclamation  of  permanent  peace. 
And  yet  the  problem  of  peace  is  a  problem  of  in- 
ternational organisation  and  international  legis- 
lation. Like  so  many  other  movements  away 
from  barbarism  and  towards  civilisation,  advance 
is  necessarily  slow  and  tedious.  Let  us  hasten, 
therefore,  and  get  started  without  further  de- 
lay. 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  it  will  be  recalled, 
proposes  that  "conferences  between  the  signatory 
powers  shall  be  held  from  time  to  time  to  formu- 
late and  codify  rules  of  international  law,  which, 
unless  some  signatory  shall  signify  its  dissent 
within  a  stated  period,  shall  thereafter  govern  in 


122     A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  tribunal."  Such  con- 
ferences as  are  contemplated  would  be,  in  a  way, 
a  continuation  of  the  First  and  Second  Hague  Con- 
ferences. Nor  would  their  purpose  be  essentially 
different  from  such  tentative  international  confer- 
ences as  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  the  Congress  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle  and  the  Congress  of  Verona.  The 
Congress  of  1815  (The  Second  Peace  of  Paris),  it 
will  be  remembered,  proposed  that  a  series  of  sim- 
ilar meetings  should  be  held  at  fixed  intervals  to 
discuss  and  decide  questions  having  to  do  with 
"the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  nations." 

There  are  two  distinctive  types  of  legislation: 
one  which  lays  down  the  law  of  the  land ;  the  other 
which  makes  rules  to  guide  the  conduct  of  indi- 
viduals in  their  relations  to  one  another.  This 
latter  kind  of  legislation,  interpreting  in  specific 
and  precise  terms  the  concrete  rights  and  duties 
of  nations,  might  very  possibly  become  the  princi- 
pal function  of  these  Conferences  for  the  clarifica- 
tion and  elaboration  of  international  law.  They 
would  constitute  a  rudimentary  legislative  organ, 
which  might,  in  course  of  time,  develop  into  a  bona 
fide  congress  of  nations,  an  international  assembly, 
for  deliberation  and  action.  In  a  way  they  would 
adumbrate  the  coming  "  parliament  of  man,"  but 


THE  AGE  OF  DISCUSSION  123 

with  no  ambition  to  fulfil  in  a  day  or  a  decade  the 
dream  of  Tennyson. 

One  thing  is  certain.  Unless  these  Conventions 
are  to  end  in  sound  and  fury  signifying  nothing 
they  will  have  to  consider  vital  questions  in  detail. 
The  condemnation  of  congresses  and  conventions 
is  that  they  are  too  often  little  more  than  debating 
societies.  If  these  periodical  assemblies  make  it 
their  business  to  consider,  in  practical  fashion, 
first  one  pressing  problem  of  international  rela- 
tions after  another,  they  may,  by  the  alchemy  of 
discussion,  transmute  many  non- justiciable  ques- 
tions into  justiciable  questions.  This  would,  of 
course,  increase  the  number  of  questions  determi- 
nable  by  the  detailed  application  of  the  principles 
of  international  law  and  decrease  the  number  that 
do  not  admit  of  such  decision.  For  it  should  be 
noted,  as  others  have  been  at  pains  to  point  out, 
that  nations  are  not,  either  in  principle  or  prac- 
tice, opposed  to  submitting  for  arbitration  ques- 
tions of  honour  or  those  that  involve  vital  inter- 
est.1 The  word  arbitration  has  a  double  mean- 
ing. Sometimes  an  international  judicial  tribunal 

i  Mr.  L.  S.  Woolf  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  Sir  Thomas 
Barclay  has  made  the  point  that  the  ALABAMA  case,  the  Vene- 
zuela Boundary  case,  the  Alaskan  Fur  Seal  difficulty,  and  the 
Alaskan  Boundary  case,  all  of  them  involved  either  national 
honour  or  vital  interest  or  both. 


124  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

is  termed  a  court  of  arbitration  when  it  ponders 
and  decides  a  given  question  with  reference  to  the 
facts  in  the  case  and  the  laws  which  apply.  Other 
"  arbitration  courts  "  inquire  as  to  the  facts,  ma- 
terial and  psychological,  and  then  offer  suggestions 
which  look  towards  a  fair  settlement.  The  first 
kind  of  court  is  not  unpopular  even  when  vital  in- 
terests are  at  stake ;  the  objection  to  the  latter  kind 
of  arbitration  is  that  it  is  likely  to  be  arbitrary. 
There  is  no  law  to  govern  or  determine  the  deci- 
sion. 

It  is  clear  that  both  in  these  Assemblies  and  in 
the  Council  of  Conciliation  some  decision  will  have 
to  be  reached  as  to  whether  or  not  the  majority  is 
to  rule.  It  cannot  be  successfully  denied  that 
the  provision  that  the  conventions  of  The  Hague 
Meetings,  in  order  to  become  binding  on  all,  had 
to  be  agreed  to  by  all,  made  it  next  to  impossible 
to  come  to  any  agreement  upon  anything. .  It  is 
clear  that  the  functions  of  the  Convention,  if  not 
indeed  of  the  Council  also,  would  be  at  least  quasi- 
legislative  and  the  making  of  much  needed  laws 
cannot  await  unanimity.  A  new  kind  of  filibuster 
would  become  discouragingly  effective,  and  one 
obstreperous  nation,  or  a  caucus  of  obstructionists, 
would  always  be  able  to  hold  the  whole  world  back. 


THE  AGE  OF  DISCUSSION  125 

What  are  some  of  the  questions  that  must  be- 
come the  real  "  agenda  "  of  these  Conventions  that 
it  is  proposed  to  hold  from  time  to  time?  What 
else,  in  addition  to  the  familiar  question  of  the 
conduct  of  nations  in  war?  A  few  that  may  be 
suggested  are  questions  pertaining  to  the  treat- 
ment of  backward  peoples  by  advanced  peoples ;  * 
questions  pertaining  to  the  acquisition  of  new  ter- 
ritory; questions  pertaining  to  free  trade  and  the 
open  door;  questions  pertaining  to  the  freedom  of 
the  seas ; 2  questions  pertaining  to  the  neutralisa- 
tion of  buffer  states,  and  of  the  highways  of  the 
sea;  questions  pertaining  to  simultaneous  reduc- 
tion of  armaments;2  questions  pertaining  to  the 
treatment  of  the  nationals  of  one  country  within 
the  territory  of  another,  both  in  the  matter  of 
transference  of  provinces  and  in  the  matter  of 

1  See  articles  on  this  subject  by  Theodore  Marburg  in  the  Inde- 
pendent for  June  20  and  November  7,  1912 ;  also  letters  written 
in  reply  by  Count  Apponyi  (Independent,  March  16,  1913)  and 
by  Prince  Di  Cassano  (Independent,  September  25,  1913).     See 
also  the  fifth  chapter  of  An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Inter- 
national Relations,  by  Arthur  Greenwood,  et  al.,  and  James 
Bryce's  The  Relations  of  the  Advanced  and  Backward  Nations 
of  Mankind. 

2  If  when  the  belligerent  nations  of  Europe  assemble  to  make 
a  treaty  of  peace  it  becomes  evident  that  the  time  is  ripe  for 
action  on  both  of  these  questions,  why  that  will  be  so  much  clear 
gain.    The  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  however,  does  not  make 
their  advance  settlement  a  preliminary  condition.     It  would  be 
possible  for  the  league  of  nations  to  be  organised  and  for  such 
questions  to  remain  open  for  subsequent  determination  by  Con- 
vention or  Council  or  Court. 


126     A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

race  discrimination,1 — these  and  many  other 
questions. 

It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  if  these  Conven- 
tions are  really  to  function  in  such  a  way  as  to  con- 
vert the  abstract  principle  of  international  moral- 
ity into  the  concrete  rules  of  right  conduct  for 
individual  nations  in  specific  relations,  they  will 
not  sit  with  folded  arms  to  while  the  hours  away. 
They  will  have  plenty  to  do. 

Each  one  of  these  several  questions  deserves  a 
chapter  for  adequate  treatment  —  at  the  very  least 
a  paragraph.  It  will  not  be  possible  in  this  place 
to  do  more  than  mention  them  and  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  they  are  all  live  questions,  pulsing 
with  the  possibilities  of  good  or  evil.  Some  of 
them  have  several  wars  to  their  credit  already  and 
unless  greed  and  prejudice  are  checked  by  the  com- 
mon conscience  of  mankind,  backed  up  by  puissant 
force,  they  will  occasion  still  other  wars.  For  ex- 
ample, Americans  will  need  to  develop  a  more  fair 
and  friendly  attitude  towards  Orientals,  or  at  the 
very  least  resolve  to  keep  their  treaties  with  them.2 

1  Sydney  L.  Gulick's  TJie  American  Japanese  Problem  and 
America  and  the  Orient. 

2  "  When  we  turn,  however,  to  the  story  of  what  many  Chi- 
nese have  suffered  here  our  cheeks  tingle  with  shame.     The 
story  would  be  incredible  were  it  not  overwhelmingly  verified 
by  ample  documentary  evidence.    Treaties  have  pledged  rights. 


THE  AGE  OF  DISCUSSION  127 

This  would  bring  the  matter  down  from  cloudland 
and  impress  us  with  the  imperative  necessity  of 
dealing  directly  with  one  of  the  non-justiciable 
questions  that  is  occasioning  not  a  little  friction 
and  that  might  very  possibly  in  course  of  time  lead 
to  the  most  serious  of  consequences. 

It  will  not  do  for  the  United  States  to  proclaim 
peace  to  the  nations  abroad  and  itself  thought- 
lessly do  things  that  provoke  war.  Justice,  as 
well  as  charity,  begins  at  home,  and  international 
morality  must  be  practised  as  well  as  preached. 

immunities,  and  protection.  They  have  nevertheless  been  dis- 
regarded and  even  knowingly  evaded;  and  this  not  only  by 
private  individuals  but  by  legislators  and  administrative  of- 
ficials. Scores  of  Chinese  have  been  murdered,  hundreds 
wounded  and  thousands  robbed  by  anti-Asiatic  mobs,  with  no 
protection  for  the  victims  or  punishment  for  the  culprits.  State 
legislatures,  and  even  congresses,  have  enacted  laws  in  contra- 
vention of  treaty  provisions.  ...  If  the  faithful  observance  of 
treaties  between  the  nations  of  Europe  constitutes  their  very 
foundation  of  civilisation,  ...  is  not  the  faithful  observance 
of  treaties  with  Asiatics  the  foundation  of  right  relations  with 
them  ?  " —  Sidney  L.  Gulick's  America  and  the  Orient,  p.  59. 


CHAPTER  XI 
IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR 

THE  time  has  come  for  a  Congress  of  Nations  to 
assemble  and  become  partners  in  an  open  conspir- 
acy in  restraint  of  war.  That,  in  sum,  is  the  cen- 
tral idea  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  But  the 
word  must  become  flesh  and  the  idea  must  take 
form  and  substance  in  the  actual  setting-up  of 
such  machinery  as  an  International  Judicial  Tri- 
bunal and  an  International  Council  of  Concili- 
ation along  the  lines  and  for  the  purposes  ex- 
plained in  the  earlier  chapters  of  this  book.  It 
will  not  do,  however,  to  stop  there.  Originality 
cannot  be  claimed  for  either  of  these  two  institu- 
tions. The  First  Hague  Conference,  as  has 
already  been  pointed  out,  organised  International 
Commissions  of  Inquiry  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
vestigating and  passing  upon  questions  voluntar- 
ily submitted  for  study  and  award.  The  Second 
Hague  Conference  worked  out  the  details  of  a  plan 
for  a  World  Court  and  agreed  upon  practically 
everything  but  the  manner  of  selecting  the  person- 

128 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  129 

nel.  Furthermore  the  obligatory  postponement  of 
all  hostilities  until  the  matter  in  dispute,  whether 
a  minor  question  or  a  question  involving  national 
honour,  has  been  thoroughly  canvassed  in  the  eyes 
of  the  world  is  the  essential  thing  in  all  the  Bryan 
treaties.  Sometimes  this  is  called  the  dilatory 
treatment  of  international  problems. 

For  the  carrying  out  of  either  or  all  of  these 
several  proposals  we  have  heretofore  trusted  to  the 
sanction  of  the  public  opinion  of  the  world.  And, 
of  course,  in  the  long  run,  the  democratic  govern- 
ance of  the  nations  must  depend  on  the  sanction- 
ing force  of  enlightened  and  humanitarian  public 
opinion.  But  to  trust  in  its  immediate  effective- 
ness is  to  take  counsel  of  faith  and  not  of  knowl- 
edge, of  hopes  and  not  of  facts.  If  States  are  not 
yet  ready  to  trust  uncompelled  individuals  to  obey 
the  mandates  of  public  opinion  in  domestic  affairs, 
how  much  less  is  the  world  at  large  ready  to  trust 
uncompelled  States  to  act  as  ever  under  the  great 
Taskmaster's  eye.  It  is  nothing  but  philosophical 
anarchism,  anarchism  of  the  chair;  nothing  more, 
nothing  less.  In  his  excellent  book *  Mr.  E.  V. 
Zenker  defines  anarchism  as  "the  perfect,  un- 
stinted self-government  of  the  individual,  and  con- 

i  Anarchism;  Criticism  and  History  of  the  Anarchist  Theory. 


130  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

sequently  the  absence  of  any  kind  of  external 
government." 

We  have  already  discussed  the  subject  of  public 
opinion  in  previous  chapters.  Suffice  it  to  say 
here  that  it  is  not  to  deny  the  latent  power  of 
public  opinion  to  insist  that  as  yet  this  moral  army 
of  ideas  and  ideals,  so  far  from  being  efficiently 
mobilised,  is  little  more  than  a  mob  of  tatterde- 
malions. Not  infrequently  the  public  opinion  of 
the  world  is  uninstructed ;  often  it  is  cowed  by 
might  and  duress,  and,  again  and  again,  when  it 
should  be  most  outspoken,  it  is  censored  and 
muzzled.1  These  are  faults  that  must  be  mended 
and  the  job  cannot  be  done  in  a  generation. 
Meantime  the  civilised  world  must  protect  itself 
against  recurrent  lapses  into  barbarism.  Public 
opinion  and  moral  fervour  and  Christian  conscience 
did  not  prevent  this  war.  What  slightest  assur- 
ance have  we  that  they  will  prevent  a  similar  or 
more  horrible  war  a  decade  hence?  None  what- 
soever. 

But  any  effort  that  looks  towards  a  larger 
grouping  of  States,  any  effort  to  organise  even  a 
very  tentative  society  of  nations,  will  be  a  tre- 

i  It  is  freely  charged  that  both  Lloyd  George's  first  speech  as 
Prime  Minister  and  President  Wilson's  note  of  December  18  were 
temporarily  "  held  up  "  by  British  censors. 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  131 

mendously  difficult  enterprise.  With  what  skill 
we  can  command  we  shall  have  to  steer  a  course 
between  the  Scylla  and  Charybdis  of  sovereignty 
and  nationality,  to  say  nothing  of  stopping  our 
ears  to  the  siren  songs  of  our  admirable  and  sin- 
cere friends,  the  conscientious  pacifists. 

But  how,  asks  the  sincere  sceptic?  How  can 
the  world  be  born  again  when  it  is  old?  The  an- 
swer to  this  entirely  pertinent  question  that  has 
been  formulated  by  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
in  its  Third  Proposal,1  is  that  we  must  make  up 
our  minds  that  at  least  for  the  present  and  prob- 
ably for  some  time  yet  to  come  we  shall  have  to 
depend  upon  force,  organised  not  to  make  war  but 
to  make  war  less  likely.  We  shall  have  to  create 
something  better  than  the  old  "  offensive  and  de- 

i "  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  forthwith  both  their 
economic  and  military  forces  against  any  one  of  their  number 
that  goes  to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility,  against  another  of 
the  signatories  before  any  question  arising  shall  be  submitted  as 
provided  in  the  foregoing." 

The  following  interpretation  has  been  authorised  by  the  Ex- 
ecutive Committee : 

"The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  employ  diplomatic  and 
economic  pressure  against  any  one  of  their  number  that  threatens 
war  against  a  fellow  signatory  without  having  first  submitted  its 
dispute  for  international  inquiry,  conciliation,  arbitration  or 
judicial  hearing,  and  awaited  a  conclusion,  or  without  having  in 
good  faith  offered  so  to  submit  it.  They  shall  follow  this  forth- 
with by  the  joint  use  of  their  military  forces  against  that  nation 
if  it  actually  goes  to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility,  against 
another  of  the  signatories  before  any  question  arising  shall  be 
dealt  with  as  provided  in  the  foregoing." 


132  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

fensive  alliances,"  a  new  kind  of  "  league "  of 
progressive  powers  that  will  be  offensive  against 
the  offender  and  defensive  of  the  undeniable  right 
of  the  majority  of  mankind  to  live  in  peace  when 
a  belligerent  and  pugnacious  minority  would  heed- 
lessly plunge  the  world  into  avoidable  wars. 
That  is  why  the  League  has  introduced  into  its 
programme  of  action  the  feature  of  requiring  and 
compelling  by  force  of  arms,  if  that  become  neces- 
sary, the  submission  of  disputes  for  public  hearing 
before  actual  war  is  undertaken  by  any  signatory 
Power.  It  means,  in  effect,  that  until  world  order 
is  restored  and  assured  by  international  civil  pro- 
cesses we  must  band  ourselves  together  into  a  kind 
of  International  Vigilance  Committee,1  a  posse 
comitatus. 

Just  how  would  the  league  of  nations  interfere 
and  intervene?  Intervention  would  be  under- 
taken in  four  ways.  In  the  first  place  the  joint 
nations  would  attempt  to  influence  any  recalci- 
trant nation-member  of  the  league  by  moral 
suasion,—  that  is  to  say,  it  would  put  a  nation 
seeking  war  before  the  judgment  seat  of  civilisa- 
tion and  require  it  to  evidence  a  decent  respect  to 

i  See  Edward  A.  Filene's  address  delivered  before  the  first 
annual  assemblage  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  at  Washing- 
ton, May  20,  1916,  now  published  as  Bulletin  No.  16. 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  133 

the  opinions  of  mankind.  It  will  not  any  longer 
be  possible  to  maintain  that  there  is  no  moral  obli- 
gation on  the  part  of  a  sovereign  State.  Perhaps 
it  is  not  yet  clear,  as  President  Wilson  affirmed  in 
his  Washington  address  before  the  League,  "  that 
nations  must  in  the  future  be  governed  by  the  same 
high  code  of  honour  that  we  demand  of  individ- 
uals." Perhaps  it  may  not  at  this  time  be  prac- 
ticable to  demand  at  once  a  single  standard  of 
morality, —  that  is  to  say  that  nations  must  obey 
the  Moral  Law  in  precisely  the  same  way  that  in- 
dividuals must.  But  the  tendency  of  modern 
times  is  certainly  in  that  general  direction.  For 
a  long  while  it  was  an  aphorism  of  law  that 
a  corporation  had  no  soul.  To-day  we  say  that 
guilt  is  personal  and  officers  of  corporations  are 
held  to  strict  accountability  for  the  wrongs  that 
they  commit  against  the  welfare  of  society.  The 
feeling  is  rapidly  growing  that  something  very 
much  like  this  must  be  demanded  of  the  nations. 

The  second  form  of  intervention  which  is  im- 
plied in  this  proposal  is  intervention  by  social 
ostracism.  This  is  implicit  without  being  said  in 
so  many  words.  Any  nation  which  pointblank  re- 
fused to  submit  its  grievance  or  dispute  to  the 
Court  of  Arbitration  or  to  the  Council  of  Con- 


134  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ciliation  before  initiating  hostilities  would,  by  vir- 
tue of  its  refusal,  become  an  outlaw  nation.  It 
would,  in  a  sense,  place  itself  beyond  the  pale  and 
would  most  certainly  be  made  to  feel  the  force  of 
public  disapproval.  And,  what  is  more,  there  is 
every  likelihood  that  the  intervention  would  go 
much  farther  than  that  and  would  practically 
amount  to  non-intercourse.1 

This  leads  us  directly  to  the  next  form  of  interven- 
tion contemplated  in  the  League's  programme, — 
intervention  by  economic  boycott.  Because  of  the 
interdependence  of  nations  in  the  modern  world 2 
it  has  become  possible  for  one  nation  practically 
to  ruin  the  economic  life  of  another  nation.  For 
we  are  members  one  of  another,  and  the  hand  can- 
not say  to  the  head,  I  have  no  need  of  thee.  A 
weapon  of  persuasion  or  compulsion  that  has  not 
yet  been  taken  from  the  wall  and  used  is  the  eco- 
nomic pressure  which  one  nation,  or  group  of  na- 
tions, can  bring  to  bear  upon  another  nation,  or 
group  of  nations,  by  withdrawing  not  only  diplo- 
matic intercourse  but  by  closing  the  postal  and 
telegraphic  systems,  interstate  transportation,  en- 

1  Commercial  intercourse  with  France  was  suspended  by  act 
of  Congress  of  the  United  States,  June  13,  1798;  with  Great 
Britain,  March  1.  1800. 

2  See  Chapter  IX,  p.  109. 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  135 

try  of  foreign  ships,  and  so  forth.  More  than  this, 
a  commercial  and  financial  boycott  could  be  em- 
ployed which  would  close  all  foreign  exchanges 
to  members  of  the  outlaw  state,  would  prohibit  all 
quotations  of  foreign  stock  exchanges,  all  dealings 
in  stocks  and  shares,  all  discounting  and  accep- 
tances of  trade  bills,  all  loans  for  public  or  private 
purposes,  and  all  payments  of  moneys  due.1 

Many  similar  weapons  are  available  in  this 
arsenal  but  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  use  of 
these  few  would  so  paralyse  any  modern  state  as  to 
bring  it  to  terms.  The  boycott  is  not  a  lovely 
weapon.  It  would  not  be  a  nice  thing  to  have  to 
use  it,  but  it  would  probably  be  less  brutal  than 
military  warfare  and  might  very  possibly  serve  to 
prevent  hostilities.  At  any  rate,  the  programme  of 
the  League  involves  its  use.  —  never  as  a  measure 
of  reprisal,  be  it  understood,  nor  of  economic  war- 
fare between  rivals,  but  always  for  the  world's 
welfare  —  with  the  hope  that  it  would  prove  so 
effective  that  the  actual  employment  of  armies  and 
navies  might  be  rendered  unnecessary.  However, 
this  is  not  at  all  certain.  It  is  not  inconceivable 
that  by  improved  methods  of  production  and  dis- 

i  See  John  A.  Hobson's  Towards  International  Government, 
p.  91. 


136  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

tribution,  by  scientific  agriculture  and  modern  in- 
dustrial practice,  nations  might  make  themselves 
so  self-sufficient  as  to  be  immune  from  this  sort 
of  attack.  The  use  of  the  boycott  is  open  to  the 
very  serious  objections  that  not  all  nations  would 
be  equally  harmed  by  its  employment  against  them, 
and  that,  after  all,  it  would  injure  non-combatants 
more  than  responsible  aggressive  governments. 

The  last  form  of  intervention  proposed  is  mili- 
tary force.  The  Treaty  that  would  create  such  a 
league  of  nations  as  is  contemplated  would  bind 
all  the  nation-members  of  the  league,  other  than 
the  recalcitrant  nation,  to  use,  if  necessary,  forc- 
ible means  (by  which,  of  course,  is  meant  armies 
and  navies),  to  require  that  the  matter  in  dispute 
be  submitted  to  the  Court  or  Council  before  fight- 
ing is  begun.1  This  is  not  the  same  thing  as  say- 
ing that  the  several  nations,  to  become  members 
of  the  League  must  pool  their  individual  and  in- 
dependent military  forces  in  such  a  way  as  to 
establish  an  international  police  force.2  This  is 
a  common  misconception  of  the  purpose  of  the 

1  Mr.  Hobson,  in  the  same  book,  reminds  us  of  the  fact  that  on 
more  than  one  occasion  international  force  has  been  employed 
with  quotas  from  several  powers.     Among  them  he  mentions  the 
Duleigno  demonstration  of  1880,  the  blockade  of  Crete  in  1897, 
the  case  of  Pekin  in  1900,  the  demonstration  at  Antivari,  and 
the  occupation  of  Scutari  in  1913. 

2  Cp.  Chapter  XII,  p.  17G. 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  137 

League.  It  is  not  conceived  as  the  function  of  the 
proposed  league  of  nations  to  keep  the  peace  in 
precisely  the  same  sense  that  a  police  force  con- 
ceives of  its  function  in  municipal  life.  Lawless- 
ness and  mob-riots  occur  only  when  a  police  force 
fails  to  do  what  it  is  purposely  constituted  to  do. 
The  armies  and  navies  of  the  nation-members 
would  be  employed  to  apprehend  the  nation  which 
begins  hostilities  and  require  it  to  bring  its  case 
to  court  before  continuing  to  make  war.  More 
than  likely  this  would  resolve  itself  into  a  joint 
punitive  expedition.  The  League  would  not  sub- 
poena a  nation  for  trial  as  a  wrong-doer. 

The  ultimate  moral  authority  of  the  Court  or 
Council  of  the  League  to  determine,  with  finality, 
vital  issues  would  not  be  assumed  by  the  league  of 
nations  nor  granted  by  the  joint  members.  There- 
fore any  member  if  dissatisfied  with  the  decision, 
or  award,  or  recommendation,  might  —  according 
to  the  terms  of  the  treaty  —  after  a  stated  time  had 
been  consumed  for  investigation  and  report,  take 
up  weapons  and  appeal  to  the  court  of  last  resort 
—  the  arbitrament  of  arms. 

Three  motives  impel  to  this  proposed  course  of 
action.  The  first  is  the  awakened  conscience  of 
mankind,  the  quickened  sense  of  duty  to  do  all  that 


138  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

is  humanly  possible  to  prevent  the  repetition  of 
such  a  terrible  war  as  this  one  which  has  filled  the 
world  with  woe  unutterable.  The  second  is  the 
motive  of  economy,  the  desire  to  escape  the  vicious 
circle  of  competitive  armaments  with  all  that  is 
involved  in  the  way  of  incalculable  costliness. 
The  third  and  tributary  motive  takes  its  rise 
among  the  nations  that  have  every  desire  to  live 
their  lives  in  peace,  and  simply  means  that  they 
have  some  rights  which  militarist  nations  are 
bound  to  respect.  The  practical  impossibility  of 
any  nation  which  prefers  to  remain  neutral  escap- 
ing the  disastrous  effects  of  present-day  war l  leads 
all  such  to  think  of  determined  belligerents  as  dis- 
turbers of  the  public  peace. 

Now  it  is  not  the  use  of  armies  and  navies  but 
the  abuse  of  them  that  has  convinced  the  nations 
that  their  employment  should,  in  some  measure, 
be  controlled.  Armaments,  as  such,  are  not 
wrong;  but  the  piling  up  of  armaments  may  very 
well  be  dangerous.  Explosives  are  always  dan- 
gerous, and  armies  and  navies  are  potential  ex- 
plosives. A  license  is  required  by  municipal  law, 
in  most  civil  communities,  for  the  privilege  of 

i  See  President  Wilson's  Speech  quoted  in  note  on  page  155, 
Chapter  XII. 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  139 

carrying  a  pocket  weapon,  because  of  the  constant 
temptation  to  use  it.  Always  it  is  a  latent 
menace.  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  would  not 
deny  the  right  of  any  nation  to  carry  a  weapon, 
in  other  words  to  possess  as  large  an  army  and 
navy  as  it  cares  to  burden  itself  with ;  but  it  would 
keep  its  use  under  surveillance  and  insist  that  it 
be  employed  only  in  cases  of  dire  extremity  after 
every  other  means  of  negotiation,  mediation,  arbi- 
tration, and  conciliation  has  been  tried  and  has 
failed  to  get  satisfactory  results.  The  conscious- 
ness of  power  and  might  is  just  as  likely  to  make 
a  swaggering  bully  out  of  a  strong  nation  as  out 
of  a  strong  man.  The  adoption  of  the  League's 
programme  by  the  great  Powers  would  tend  to 
quell  and  control  the  temptation  to  threaten  and 
menace  other  peoples  and  nations. 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  is  not  a  cross  be- 
tween militarism  and  pacifism.  It  is  a  modus 
operandi.  It  is  a  strong  thread  by  means  of  which 
the  nations  may  possibly  find  a  way  out  of  the 
labyrinth  of  recurrent  wars.  It  is  not  a  case  of 
carrying  water  on  both  shoulders;  of  trying  to 
serve  God  and  Mammon  at  the  same  time.  It  is  a 
compromise  with  perfection.  It  is  a  frank  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  fact  that  in  this  matter,  as 


140  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

in  so  many  others,  the  truth  is  not  in  the  bottom  of 
a  well,  nor  at  the  end  of  the  rainbow,  but  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  road.  It  is  practical  idealism,  a  tenta- 
tive effort  in  creative  statesmanship.  It  is,  if  you 
please,  political  eclecticism.  It  would  take  the 
best  that  there  is  in  military  preparedness  and 
avail  itself  of  its  value  for  physical  defence  and 
moral  discipline  and  then  it  would  use  these  means 
not  for  aggrandisement  or  ambition  or  revenge, 
but  to  protect  the  gains  of  civilisation  and  provide 
against  a  reversion  to  savagery,  against  "  the  re- 
barbarisation  which  is  continually  threatening 
civilisation/' 1  It  looks  into  the  future  far  as 
human  eye  can  see,  but  no  farther.  It  does  not 
fail  to  recognise  the  ultimate  truth  of  the  pacifists' 
position  —  as  a  consummation  devoutly  to  be 
wished. 

The  temptation  here  will  be  to  protest  that  one 
cannot  serve  two  masters.  Doubtless  it  will  be 
said  that  those  who  urge  the  programme  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  are  inconsistent.  By 
rigorous  definition  and  strict  etymology  that  may 
be  true,  but  consistency  is  a  jewel  which  has  lost 
a  good  deal  of  its  lustre.  After  all,  what  is  there 

i  See  Herbert  Spencer's  Principles  of  Sociology.  Read  Oscar 
Straus'  speech  on  "The  Rebarbarization  of  the  World,"  pub- 
lished by  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  as  Bulletin  No.  21. 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  141 

inconsistent  in  the  proposals  of  the  League?  Is 
it  inconsistent  to  maintain  public  and  private 
charitable  institutions  for  improving  the  condi- 
tion of  the  poor  at  the  same  time  that  every  effort 
is  being  made  by  legislation  and  education  to  re- 
duce poverty  to  a  minimum  and  perhaps  to  abol- 
ish it  altogether?  Is  it  inconsistent  to  support 
an  army  of  doctors  and  to  maintain  an  adequate 
number  of  hospitals  at  one  and  the  same  time  that 
attempts  are  made  by  control  of  living  conditions, 
by  control  of  the  birth-rate,  and  so  forth,  to  remove 
the  causes  of  contagion  and  transmission  of  dis- 
ease and,  perhaps,  at  length,  to  do  away  with  dis- 
ease altogether?  One  may  take  out  an  accident 
policy  and  at  the  same  time  consistently  work  for 
the  installation  of  safety  appliances  and  the  reduc- 
tion of  railroad  collisions.  One  may  abhor  every 
manifestation  of  vice  and  crime  and  still  believe 
in  courts  and  jails.  In  point  of  fact,  one  may  be- 
lieve in  supporting  an  adequate  and  efficient  state 
militia  that  is  never  to  be  used  until  every  other 
instrumentality  has  first  been  tried  and  has  failed 
to  preserve  the  public  peace. 

The  problem  of  preparedness  goes  much  deeper 
than  the  surface  and  no  off-hand  solution  ought  to 
be  attempted.  Instinctive  prejudice  should  not  be 


142  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

permitted  to  block  the  path  of  progress.  Is  it  not 
rather  pretentious  to  try  to  impale  great  numbers 
of  intelligent  people  upon  one  or  another  horn  of 
the  dilemma?  One  may  be  neither  a  profiter, 
who  stands  to  gain  by  the  propaganda  for  national 
preparedness,  nor  a  guileless  victim  of  militarist 
philosophy;  and  yet  he  may  sincerely  believe  in 
preparedness.  Of  course  armies  and  navies  are 
very  expensive,  but  so  also  is  food;  and  while  all 
of  us  might  be  better  off  with  compulsory  limitation 
and  reduction  of  our  rations,  there  is  really  no  rea- 
son why  we  should  go  from  the  extreme  of  gluttony 
to  the  extreme  of  abstemiousness.  The  world  can 
well  be  saved  from  the  excessive  cost  of  over-arma- 
ments. The  operation  of  the  League's  programme 
would  more  than  likely  lead  to  this  very  thing. 

The  idea  of  complete  disarmament,  or  of  limita- 
tion of  armaments,  may  be  comparatively  novel; 
but  the  principle  of  legal  limitation  is  not  new  in 
social  relationships,  any  more  than  we  found  the 
principle  of  federation  or  arbitration  to  be  new. 
Already  we  have  the  limitation  of  hours  of  labour, 
of  age  for  employment,  of  age  of  consent,  of  rates 
for  transportation,  and,  in  a  measure,  we  also  have 
the  legal  limitation  of  dividends.  All  these  are 
accepted  as  just  and  desirable.  The  principle  of 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  143 

limitation  by  consent  may  well  be  gradually  ex- 
tended to  cover  armies  and  navies.  It  would  come 
about  as  a  sort  of  corollary  and  by-product  of  the 
improved  organisation  of  the  world.  That  is  the 
way  it  has  always  been  in  the  past.  Just  as  rap- 
idly as  individuals  and  communities  quit  trying  to 
settle  their  arguments  by  fighting  them  out  —  by 
invoking  the  law  of  the  jungle  —  just  so  fast  were 
they  able  to  throw  away  their  weapons  of  war  and 
put  their  trust  in  something  else.  We  hardly  need 
to  be  reminded  again  that  the  time  was  when  the 
individual,  for  self-protection,  wore  a  suit  of 
shining  armour,  because  intrastate  anarchy  pre- 
vailed and  personal  hostilities  were  likely  to  start 
at  any  moment.  But  one  does  not  need  to  go  back 
that  far.  In  more  recent  times  American  path- 
finders and  pioneers,  living  on  the  frontiers,  were, 
as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  obliged  to  be  con- 
stantly armed  for  self-protection,  because  they 
were  subject  at  any  moment  to  surprise  attacks. 
As  conditions  gradually  improved  to  the  point 
where  this  likelihood  of  sudden  attack  was  reduced 
to  a  minimum,  these  weapons  of  defence  were 
thrown  away.  The  time  was  when  cities  were 
military  rivals  and  when  the  citizenry  were  in  fre- 
quent armed  conflict.  Hence  communities  main- 


144  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

tained,  insofar  as  was  practicable,  independent 
armies.  That  day  is  now  but  a  record  in  history. 
When  small  communities  were  organised  into 
larger  groups  and  those  in  turn  became  states, 
they  were  able  to  do  away  with  competitive  arma- 
ments and  a  great  saving  was  effected. 

Now  it  is  quite  reasonable  to  suppose  that  much 
the  same  thing  will  happen  to  the  armaments  of 
nations  if  anything  approaching  a  federal  arrange- 
ment can  possibly  be  brought  about.  If  by  the 
mandatory  provision  for  a  preliminary  submission 
of  disputes  before  war  is  commenced  the  fear  of 
sudden  attack  can  be  eliminated,  then  with  it  will 
also  go  the  imperative  need  for  extensive  prepara- 
tion for  such  possible  attack.  Not  that  there 
would  necessarily  be  any  "  naval  holiday "  pro- 
claimed, and  not  that  there  would  necessarily  be 
any  positive  fixing  of  the  maximum  limit  of  mili- 
tary preparedness,  but  merely  that  the  desire  for 
such  extreme  preparedness  would  die  out  with  the 
need.  If  a  nation  could  be  insured  and  guaranteed 
against  sudden  attack  it  could  afford  to  postpone 
military  preparedness. 

So  far  from  proposing  to  do  away  with  arma- 
ments in  America,  or  even  to  reduce  armaments, 
whether  at  once  or  in  the  proximate  future,  the 


IN  RESTRAINT  OF  WAR  145 

possibility  would  be  that,  on  a  basis  of  population, 
this  country  might  even  have  to  increase  its  mili- 
tary and  naval  forces,1  in  order  to  provide  its 
quota  for  the  international  defence. 

Some  degree  of  preparedness  is  not  only  desir- 
able, but  absolutely  necessary,  and  probably  will 
continue  to  be  for  a  long  time  to  come.  To  be 
prepared  for  all  probable  contingencies  and  emer- 
gencies, personal  and  national,  would  seem  to  be 
but  the  plain  duty  of  every  self-respecting  man  and 
nation, —  the  part  of  wisdom  and  statesmanship. 
Complete  disarmament  is  a  counsel  of  perfection, 

—  impracticable  for  the  present.     It  is  not  incon- 
ceivable, of  course,  that  the  day  may  sometime 
come  when  the  whole  world  can  and  will  disarm; 
but  that  time  is  not  yet.     So  long  as  there  are  gun- 
men in  New  York  City  who  are  ready  to  shoot  a 
man    down   for   two-dollars-and-a-half,   that   city 
must  continue  to  support  a  police  force  of  over 
ten  thousand  men.     Surely  no  tax-paying  citizen, 

—  not  even  the  ultra  pacifists, —  would  think  of 

i  After  discussion  of  the  necessity  to  correct  misconceptions 
which  had  got  abroad  regarding  the  probable  influence  of  the 
League  on  proposals  for  increased  national  defence,  the  follow- 
ing resolution  was  adopted  without  adverse  vote  by  the  Execu- 
tive Committee  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  at  its  meeting  on 
September  17,  1915 :  "  The  Executive  Committee  expresses  the 
opinion  that  efficient  preparation  for  adequate  national  defence 
is  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  League  but  on 
the  contrary  is  essential  thereto." 


146  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

this  small  army  as  an  army  of  aggression  or  as  a 
menace  to  the  community.  It  is  not  impossible 
for  such  a  purely  defensive  organisation  as  a  city 
police  force  or  a  state  militia,  by  perversion  (as 
in  the  Becker  case  and  the  Ludlow  instance),  to 
be  used  to  harm  and  not  to  help  the  citizens  and 
workers.  But  it  is  precisely  because  the  armies 
and  navies  of  nations  have  been  treated  as  the 
tools  of  sovereign  States,  to  do  with  as  they 
pleased,  that  this  plan  of  international  control  is 
advocated  and  urged. 

Just  so  long  as  States  and  statesmen  labour 
under  the  delusions  l  that  the  State  is  a  moral  law 
unto  itself,  and  that  its  end  and  aim  is  power; 
that  States  are  natural  enemies;  that  there  is  an 
economic  advantage  in  privilege,  in  conquest,  in 
colonies;  and  that  Clausewitz  was  right  in  his 
celebrated  dictum  that  war  is  but  the  extension  of 
politics, —  just  so  long  will  immense  armies  and 
navies  persist  and  continue  to  menace  the  peace 
of  the  world. 

i  These  several  delusions  are  considered,  at  some  length,  in 
Part  III  as  Articles  in  the  Creed  of  Militarism. 


CHAPTER  XII 
WILL  IT  WORK? 

IT  is  hardly  worth  while  to  waste  time  in  replying 
to  the  objections  of  those  who  face  every  hard  task 
with  fear  and  doubt,  who  say  it  can't  be  done. 
These  are  the  victims  of  inertia  and  their  num- 
ber is  legion.  Such  friends  of  progress  not  only 
never  help  the  world  forward,  but  they  clamp  a 
brake  on  the  moving  wheels.  Forward-looking 
and  forward-moving  people  always  have  to  ignore 
critics  of  this  type.  If  they  will  not  get  out  of 
the  way  then  it  is  their  own  fault  if  they  are  run 
over. 

Pessimism,  a  feeling  of  despondency,  not  to  say 
despair,  must  also  be  reckoned  with.  This,  how- 
ever, is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  mental  and 
moral  laziness  we  have  just  considered.  It  is  the 
natural  reaction  to  the  horror  and  enormity  of  the 
war  upon  the  human  spirit.  Faith  in  anybody  and 
anything  has  been  consumed  by  curtains  of  fire.  It 
is  hard  to  be  hopeful  to-day.  The  tide  of  optimism 
is  at  its  lowest  ebb.  But  in  the  presence  of  the 

147 


148  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

valiant  heroisms  of  soldiers  in  the  field  surely 
civilians  should  not  lose  courage  and  morale.  The 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  realising  the  programme  of 
a  league  of  nations  to  insure  and  enforce  peace  are 
not  insurmountable.  Some  of  them  that  now  seem 
so  formidable  as  we  vision  them  in  the  distance, 
may,  as  we  approach  nearer,  and  engage  them  one 
at  a  time,  surrender  to  determined  attack. 

But  there  are  more  matter-of-fact  objections 
from  more  respectable  sources  than  scepticism  or 
pessimism.  These  deserve  to  be  frankly  and  hon- 
estly answered. 

At  the  outset  it  should  be  acknowledged  that  in 
industry  no  fool-proof  machine  has  ever  yet  been 
invented,  and  that  the  most  perfect  machine  in 
nature  (the  human  body)  was  long  ages  in  build- 
ing. In  municipal  and  national  politics  the  most 
efficient  machine,  the  one  that  will  produce,  with 
the  least  waste  of  friction,  the  greatest  good  to  the 
greatest  number,  has  yet  to  be  invented.  If  we 
were  to  postpone  the  setting-up  of  any  machinery 
for  the  conduct  of  human  affairs  until  we  were 
certain  beyond  a  shadow  of  doubt  that  it  could 
not  possibly  go  wrong,  or  even  until  all  objections 
were  finally  and  completely  answered,  we  should 
never  get  anywhere  and  never  do  anything. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  149 

Almost  as  many  objections  can  be  urged  against 
democracy,  against  woman  suffrage,  against  labour 
unions,  as  can  be  advanced  in  their  support. 
Buskin's  arguments  against  railroads  are  too  well 
known  to  need  re-statement  here.  The  advocacy 
of  a  measure,  and  whether  or  not  it  is  expedient  to 
adopt  it,  must  be  determined  by  weight  of  opinion 
and  the  possibility  of  finding  a  way  to  initiate  the 
experiment.  If  it  seems  at  all  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  the  experiment  which  the  League  pro- 
poses will  tend  to  make  future  wars  less  likely, 
then  by  all  means  it  ought  to  be  tried.  This  is  the 
only  fair  and  sensible  test.  It  is  not  a  theoretical 
problem  in  metaphysics  to  be  debated  for  the  sake 
of  debate,  or  as  an  exercise  in  dialectical  skill.  The 
matter  is  too  important  for  wordy  argument. 

Many  of  the  criticisms  levelled  at  the  League's 
proposals  are  due  to  ignorance  of  what  those  pro- 
posals really  are,  or  to  an  honest  misunderstand- 
ing of  their  purport  and  implications.  For  the 
most  part,  these  difficulties  will  be  cleared  away  by 
careful  reading  of  the  earlier  chapters  of  this  book, 
and  if  there  remain  some  questions  which  occur 
to  the  sincere  inquirer,  seeking  to  understand  fully 
and  clearly,  they  will  in  all  probability  be  an- 
swered in  this  chapter. 


150   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

The  caption  which  heads  the  chapter  raises  the 
question  of  the  feasibility  of  the  idea,  the  prac- 
ticability of  the  proposals.  Will  it  work?  There 
are  several  directions  from  which  to  approach  the 
problem.  Perhaps  it  will  be  just  as  well  to  come 
at  it  from  all  sides.  Let  us  first  look  at  it  from 
the  angle  of  the  name  of  the  project,  or  rather,  the 
name  of  the  organisation  which  has  conceived  the 
project  and  is  exerting  every  effort  to  convince 
responsible  statesmen,  and  the  people  that  stand 
back  of  the  governments,  that  it  ought  to  be  put 
into  operation  as  soon  as  may  be  after  the  close  of 
the  present  war.  A  League  to  Enforce  Peace  — 
with  the  emphasis  on  Enforce!  Some  object  to 
the  word  "  League  r ;  some  object  to  the  word  "  En- 
force " ;  and  some  object  to  the  word  "  Peace." 

The  first  criticism  is  on  the  word  "  league." 
Objection  is  taken  to  the  fact  that  the  programme 
contemplates  a  league  of  nations.  This  objection 
is  important  enough  to  warrant  serious  considera- 
tion. Analysis  reveals  the  fact  that  it  is  a  three- 
fold question;  at  any  rate  there  are  three  reasons 
why  such  a  league  of  nations  is  by  some  considered 
undesirable. 

The  first  reason  given  is  that  what  is  proposed 
is  a  world  alliance.  But  this  is  a  mistaken  notion. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  151 

What  is  proposed  is  not  a  world  alliance  but  a 
league  of  nations  —  a  very  different  thing.  Since 
the  outbreak  of  the  present  war  much  has  been 
said  about  the  dangers  which  grow  out  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  desirability  of  maintaining  groups  or 
alliances  to  preserve  poise.  It  is  said  that  such 
alliances  of  states  have  more  often  tended  to  pro- 
voke than  to  prevent  war.  To  estop  premature 
action  on  the  part  of  unscrupulous  statesmen,  rep- 
resenting ambitious  nations,  alliances  have,  time 
and  again,  been  formed  that  were  calculated  to  be 
so  strong  as  to  strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of 
would-be  aggressors.  And,  it  must  be  acknowl- 
edged, to  some  extent  the  great  European  alliances 
have  had  exactly  this  effect.  They  have  certainly 
served  to  postpone  many  and  perhaps  to  prevent 
some  wars.  But  the  claim  that  alliances  are 
sought  in  order  to  maintain  what  Sir  Robert  Wai- 
pole  first  called  "  the  balance  of  power ,"  to  insure 
perfect  equilibrium,  is  a  romantic  fiction.  It  can- 
not be  necessary  to  argue  that  diplomats  move 
heaven  and  earth  to  bring  about  new  alliances,  not 
for  the  purpose  of  performing  a  trick  in  acrobatics, 
of  perfectly  balancing  opposing  powers,  but  for 
the  purpose  of  making  the  scales  tip  in  one  or  an- 
other's favour  in  order  that  there  will  be  a  pre- 


152   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ponderance  of  power  when  the  occasion  comes  to 
use  it.  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  does  not  pro- 
pose anything  analogous  to  the  old  style  of  alli- 
ances. It  clearly  states  in  the  preamble  to  its 
proposals  that  "it  believes  it  to  be  desirable  for 
the  United  States  to  join  a  league  of  nations." 

This  present  war  has  demonstrated  that  the  old 
kind  of  alliances,  whatever  the  motives  be  that  in- 
spire their  formation,  are,  when  once  in  existence, 
as  prone  to  accelerate  as  to  delay  the  coming  of 
international  strife.  The  opposing  forces  measure 
their  relative  military  and  naval  strength,  they 
weigh  their  ships  and  guns  in  the  scales,  and  then 
begins  the  absurd  and  shameful  business  of  com- 
petitive building,  the  piling-up  of  huge  armies  and 
navies,  until  war  intervenes  temporarily  to  halt 
the  whole  wretched  process.  This  can  hardly  be 
denied.  But  it  cannot  be  made  too  clear  that  the 
League  does  not  have  in  mind  any  such  alliance. 
It  is,  nevertheless,  confidently  believed  that  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  would  have  one  effect 
that  the  old  alliances  sometimes  had :  It  would  be 
sufficiently  powerful  to  overawe  any  member  of  the 
society  of  nations  that  happens  to  feel  a  temptation 
stirring  within  it  to  assert  its  indomitable  will  by 
challenging  the  organised  forces  of  civilisation. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  153 

Such  a  nation  would  think  twice  before  calling  down 
upon  its  head  the  wrath  of  a  dozen  leagued  nations. 

The  second  reason  for  opposing  the  idea  of  a 
league  of  nations  is  that  were  such  a  league  to  be- 
come a  reality  it  would  be  but  the  beginning  of  a 
gigantic  Federal  State  which  might  result  in  the 
wiping-out  of  all  national  distinctions  and  thus 
deprive  the  world  of  the  special  contributions  of 
the  various  nations.1  We  must  be  careful  not  to 
lose  sight  of  the  difference  between  a  Federal  State 
and  a  Federation  of  States.2  But  that  aside,  it  is 
possible  to  preserve  personality  in  a  family  and 
individuality  in  a  community,  and,  unless  some 
sort  of  Super-State,  imposing  rigid  uniformity, 
were  to  develop  out  of  the  league,  the  fear  that  the 
personalities  of  the  nations  would  be  stamped  out 
is  fantastic  and  far-visioned.  Such  a  league  as  is 
proposed  would  more  nearly  resemble  the  present 
federation  of  the  churches  than  the  kind  of  church 
union,  sometimes  dreamed  of,  that  would  demand 
the  death  of  all  denominations. 

The  third  reason  given  for  not  being  in  favour 
of  any  league  of  nations  that  would  include  the 
United  States,  is  the  fact  that  American  traditional 

1  See  Chapter  XVI,  "  The  Frontiers  of  Friendship." 

2  See  Treitschke's  Politics,  Vol.  I,  p.  30. 


154  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

policy  is  against  such  alliances  with  European 
States  as  would  give  the  monarchical  system  of 
government  of  the  Old  World  a  chance  to  get  a 
foothold  on  the  Western  Hemisphere.  This  ob- 
jection has  already  been  studied  in  another  con- 
nection.1 Those  who  raise  this  objection  are  think- 
ing of  Washington's  patriotic  valedictory.  But 
it  is  not  proposed  or  even  suggested  by  the  League 
that  we  should  "  implicate  ourselves,  by  artificial 
ties,  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  Europe's  pol- 
itics, or  the  ordinary  combinations  and  collisions 
of  her  friendships  or  enmities."  It  remains  to  add 
that  we  are  living  in  another  world  than  that  in- 
habited by  the  founders  of  this  Republic.2  Trans- 
oceanic cables  have  tied  the  ends  of  the  world  to- 
gether. Oceans  no  longer  separate  but  join  hemi- 
spheres, and  steamships  are  palatial  ferries.  What 
is  more,  the  United  States  was  in  Washington's 
time  a  nation  of  three  and  a  half  millions  of  peo- 
ple. To-day  there  are  more  than  one  hundred  mil- 
lions of  people  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific 
and  "  from  the  quays  of  Florida  where  red  flam- 
ingoes fly  to  where  the  great  lakes  bare  their  breasts 

1  See  Chapter  VII,  "  A  League  of  States." 

2  See  "  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  Made  Plain,"  by  the 
Hon.  William   Howard  Taft    (Bulletin  No.  20),  and  "Disen- 
tangling Alliances,"  by  Dr.  Talcott  Williams  (Bulletin  No.  31). 


WILL  IT  WORK?  155 

unto  their  Lord  the  sky."  Then  we  were  a  na- 
tion of  thirteen  states  along  the  Atlantic  coast. 
To-day  we  are  a  world  power,  with  possessions  on 
the  other  side  of  the  globe  and  with  interests  in 
the  Orient.  We  own  Alaska;  we  own  Hawaii;  we 
own  the  Philippine  Islands;  we  own  Panama;  we 
own  Porto  Rico.  We  cannot  afford  to  hide  the 
light  of  truth  under  the  bushel  of  sentimental 
shibboleths.  What  is  the  use  crying,  Isolation,  iso- 
lation, when  there  is  no  isolation  —  splendid  or 
lacklustre?  It  is  within  our  power  as  a  nation  to 
refuse  to  join  with  the  other  progressive  nations 
in  a  united  effort  to  prevent  war;  it  is  not  within 
our  power  any  longer  to  be  like  a  star  and  dwell 
apart,  to  live  in  sheltered  seclusion  free  from  the 
danger  of  wars  that  can  no  longer  be  confined  to  a 
limited  area.1 

i "  This  is  the  last  war  of  the  kind,  or  of  any  kind  that  in- 
volves the  world,  that  the  United  States  can  keep  out  of  ... 
the  business  of  neutrality  is  over  .  .  .  war  now  has  such  a 
scale  that  the  position  of  neutrals  sooner  or  later  becomes  intol- 
erable. Just  as  neutrality  would  be  intolerable  to  me  if  I  lived 
in  a  community  where  everybody  had  to  assert  his  own  rights  by 
force  and  I  had  to  go  around  among  my  neighbours  and  say, 
'  Here,  this  cannot  last  any  longer ;  let  us  get  together  and  see 
that  nobody  disturbs  the  peace  any  more.'  That  is  what  society 
is,  and  we  have  not  yet  a  society  of  nations.  We  must  have  a 
society  of  nations.  Not  suddenly,  not  by  insistence,  not  by  any 
hostile  emphasis  upon  the  demand,  but  by  the  demonstration  of 
the  needs  of  the  time.  The  nations  of  the  world  must  get 
together  and  say,  that  nobody  can  hereafter  be  neutral  as  re- 
spects the  disturbance  of  the  world's  peace  for  an  object  which 
the  world's  opinion  cannot  sanction.  The  world's  peace  ought  to 


156  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

At  one  time  it  may  have  meant  something  to  say 
that  the  United  States  should  not  be  unequally 
yoked  together  with  unbelievers  in  democracy.  It 
no  longer  means  anything  at  all.  England  and 
France  are  not  monarchies  any  more  and  certain 
of  the  smaller  European  countries  have  carried  the 
standard  of  democracy  even  farther  forward  than 
the  United  States. 

What  is  really  conceived  of  as  the  principal  ob- 
jection to  the  United  States  entering  such  a  league 
was  recently  voiced  by  the  former  Secretary  of 
War,  Mr.  Lindley  M.  Garrison,  in  an  address  be- 
fore the  Lawyers'  Club,  in  New  York,  December 
16,  1916.  In  part  he  said:  « If  the  United  States 
joins  she  is  perforce  a  party  to  every  quarrel  the 
wide  world  over.  Is  it  not  inevitable  that  instead 
of  pursuing  her  natural  development  along  lines 
expressive  of  her  innate  genius  and  energy  she  will 
surely  be  diverted  therefrom  and  plunged  into  alien 
matters  utterly  foreign  to  her  real  concern  and  her 
best  and  vital  interests?  A  self-respecting  nation 

be  disturbed  if  the  fundamental  rights  of  humanity  are  invaded, 
but  it  ought  not  to  be  disturbed  for  any  other  thing  that  I  can 
think  of,  and  America  was  established  in  order  to  indicate,  at 
any  rate  in  one  government,  the  fundamental  ricrhts  of  man. 
America  must  hereafter  be  ready  as  a  member  of  the  family  of 
nations  to  exert  her  whole  force,  moral  and  physical,  to  the 
assertion  of  those  rights  throughout  the  round  globe." — 
President  Wilson  in  an  Address  before  the  Woman's  City  Club 
of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  on  October  25, 1916. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  157 

walking  the  path  of  rectitude,  strictly  attending  to 
its.  own  affairs,  seeking  no  offence  and  giving  none, 
seems  to  me  to  be  better  serving  the  interests  of 
mankind  than  could  possibly  be  done  by  voluntarily 
crossing  the  path  of  every  other  nation  in  the  world, 
pledged  to  feel  offence  where  none  was  intended, 
and  taking  up  the  quarrels  of  others  in  which  it  can 
have  no  proper  concern." 

But  why?  Why,  if  the  United  States  joins, 
with  certain  other  countries,  a  league  of  nations, 
should  we  necessarily  become  embroiled  in  all  the 
petty  quarrels  of  Europe?  Why  must  the  United 
States  "  perforce  become  a  party  to  every  quarrel 
the  wide  world  over"?  A  careful  reading  of  the 
brief  programme  of  the  League  should  make  it  per- 
fectly plain  that  the  essential  suggestion  is  that 
the  progressive  powers  would  band  themselves  to- 
gether to  arrest,  by  force  if  necessary,  the  pre- 
mature action  of  any  signatory  which  is  tempted 
to  break  its  treaty  and  start  a  war  before  first 
submitting  its  dispute  for  hearing.  The  risk  in- 
volved is  that  the  time  might  possibly  come  when 
we  would  have  to  engage  with  other  nations  in  a 
joint  punitive  expedition  against  a  national  dis- 
turber of  world  peace.  Is  the  United  States  will- 
ing to  assume  that  risk,  with  the  possibility,  and 


158  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

perhaps  the  probability,  that  the  organisation  of 
such  a  union  of  nations  would  reduce  to  a  mini- 
mum the  likelihood  of  war?  It  is  for  America  to 
take  her  choice  of  policies.  May  no  mistake  be 
made. 

We  have  so  far  considered  but  one  main  objec- 
tion—  the  objection  that  the  proposals  contem- 
plate a  "  league  "  of  nations.  The  second  objec- 
tion to  the  idea  is  that  it  is  a  league  to  "  enforce," 
and  there  are  many  who  are  firmly  opposed  to  the 
use  of  force.  Some  of  those  who  object  to  the  use 
of  force  are  opposed  because  they  think  it  is  futile ; 
others  because  they  think  it  is  wrong. 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  when  Dr. 
Gatling  invented  his  famous  gun  he  thought  that 
the  more  horrible  and  efficient  the  instruments  of 
destruction  were  made  the  sooner  there  would  be 
an  end  of  all  war.  Alfred  Nobel  held  the  same 
belief.  That  they  were  both  wrong  is  now  per- 
fectly patent.  And  not  only  in  respect  to  the 
character  of  armaments,  but  also  in  respect  to  the 
amount  of  armaments,  we  have  all  been  disap- 
pointed insofar  as  we  trusted  them  to  prevent  war. 
Militarists  all  argued  that  preparedness  was  in- 
surance against  war  and  so  they  said  that  every 
nation  was  duty-bound  to  arm  itself  against  all 


WILL  IT  WORK?  159 

possible  contestants.  Obviously,  and  on  the  face 
of  it,  this  was  and  is  impossible,  for  the  moment 
one  nation  has  acquired  any  considerable  superior- 
ity and  supremacy  in  the  matter  of  preparedness, 
that  nation  becomes  a  potential  menace.  At  once 
some  other  nation,  that  may  be  or  become  an  en- 
emy, sees  itself  as  relatively  defenceless  and  pro- 
ceeds forthwith  to  make  itself  mightier  than  its 
opponent.  And  thus  the  vicious  circle  is  described. 
Military  weakness  is  no  sure  guaranty  of  secur- 
ity. Unpreparedness  will  not  stave  off  the  com- 
ing of  actual  war,  to  say  not  a  word  about  indignity 
and  injustice.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
proved  that  over-armament,  super-preparedness, 
is  no  sure  prophylaxis  either.  The  opponents  of 
force  contend  that  we  do  not  get  peace  and  concord 
and  amity  by  preparing  for  war  and  hate  and 
enmity.  On  the  contrary,  they  urge  that  the  very 
process  of  piling  up  huge  munitions  of  war  is  but 
the  piling  up  of  the  provocatives  of  war.  But  is 
not  the  reason  why  ultra-preparedness  has  failed 
to  furnish  any  real  protection  against  war  prac- 
tically the  same  as  the  reason  why  ultra-pacifism 
has  failed, —  because  both  were  irrational?  A  rea- 
sonable amount  of  national  armaments,  subject  in 
some  measure  to  international  control,  for  the  less- 


160  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ening  of  the  likelihood  of  wars  between  nations, — 
to  supply  the  "  sanction  "  for  international  guar- 
antees of  national  security, —  surely  this  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  the  wanton  use  of  force. 

The  impotency  of  sheer  brute  force  to  decide 
many  matters  of  great  importance  may  as  well  be 
acknowledged  without  quibbling.  At  one  time  we 
thought  that  the  most  effective  way  to  make  con- 
verts to  a  particular  form  of  religion  was  to  con- 
quer them  by  the  sword.  This  was  the  error  of 
the  Crusaders  and  the  followers  of  Mahomet.  The 
time  was  when  many  acted  on  the  theory  that  the 
only  way  to  educate  a  child  was  to  pound  knowl- 
edge into  it,  and  that  the  only  way  to  reform 
criminals  was  by  employing  the  extremest  forms 
of  inhuman  punishment.  Indeed  the  time  was 
when  we  insanely  tried  to  cure  lunatics  with  many 
stripes.  To  recognise  the  futility  of  force  to  ac- 
complish certain  purposes  is,  however,  not  to  con- 
cede that  there  is  no  proper  use  for  physical 
force. 

We  now  come  to  those  who  are  unalterably  op- 
posed to  the  use  of  force,  in  principle  and  practice, 
for  any  purpose  whatsoever  —  to  the  non-resistants 
and  conscientious  objectors.  These  say  that  phys- 
ical force  is  involved  in  the  programme  of  the 


WILL  IT  WORK?  161 

League  to  enforce  Peace  and  that  this  is  contrary  to 
the  primary  principles  of  pacific  settlement.  They 
argue  that  we  should  depend  upon  the  enlightened 
public  opinion  of  the  world  and  the  moral  senti- 
ments of  mankind  to  back-up  treaty  obligations. 
All  of  this  is  somewhat  confusing  for  the  reason 
that  we  have  failed  to  define  our  terms.  The  ques- 
tion is  not,  Shall  we  have  force  in  the  world  or  shall 
we  not  have  it?  Force  is  here  and  there  is  no  get- 
ting away  from  that  obvious  fact.  Indeed  the  very 
definition  of  life,  with  movement  and  change,  and 
action  and  reaction,  is  that  force  of  some  sort  or 
other  is  always  operating  in  the  world.  This  may 
be  the  force  of  gravity  or  the  force  of  cohesion  or 
the  force  of  attraction.  At  the  other  extreme  it 
may  be  the  force  of  love.  If  this  seems  beside  the 
mark  then  we  may  say  very  bluntly  that  the  ex- 
istence of  brute  force  is  undeniable  and,  further- 
more, that  it  certainly  always  will  be  used  by  na- 
ture in  the  accomplishment  of  her  ends  and  prob- 
ably in  social  and  political  life  by  man  in  the  ac- 
complishment of  his  ends. 

In  the  last  analysis  the  problem  has  to  do  with 
the  right  use  of  the  right  kind  of  force.  For  there 
are  varieties  of  force.  Which  kind  of  force  shall 
we  use  to  accomplish  our  purpose?  In  early  times 


162  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

it  probably  was  necessary  for  primitive  man  to  de- 
fend himself  against  wild  animals  and  predaceous 
neighbours  by  the  use  of  his  bare  fists.  But  as 
man  advanced  and  became  more  intelligent  he  de- 
vised new  and  better  ways  of  combating  the  things 
in  life  that  were  inimical  to  his  interests.  He  in- 
vented clubs  and  arrows  and  indeed  kept  on  im- 
proving his  instruments  of  attack  and  defence  until 
to-day  we  have  mighty  armies  and  navies.  After 
awhile  he  came  to  a  realisation  of  the  fact  that  his 
brain  was  more  powerful  than  his  fists,  with  the 
result  that  more  and  more  he  substituted  intel- 
lectual force  for  brute  force.  In  all  likelihood  we 
shall  continue  to  use  brute  force  in  social  relations 
for  some  time  to  come.  For  just  how  long,  and  to 
just  what  extent,  nobody  really  knows. 

To  many  earnest  lovers  of  peace,  and  advocates 
of  measures  to  prevent  war,  the  Tolstoian  principle 
of  uncompromising  opposition  to  all  use  of  any 
kind  of  physical  force  for  any  purpose  however 
worthy  or  noble  seems  to  be  untenable.  The 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  does  not  enter  into  any 
discussion  of  the  conflicting  philosophies  of  right 
and  wrong.  It  does  not  hold  that  the  extreme 
pacifist  is  necessarily  wrong,  in  theory,  when  he 
believes  in  non-resistance.  It  simply  recognises 


WILL  IT  WORK?  163 

the  fact  of  force  and  the  need  of  using  force  for 
the  ends  of  civilisation.  Theoretically  it  may  be 
granted  that  it  would  be  better  never  to  use  phys- 
ical force  for  any  purpose ;  that  it  would  be  prefer- 
able to  employ  such  means  as  moral  suasion  and 
intellectual  conviction.  But  the  problem  of  force 
is  not  an  academic  problem  for  schoolmen;  it  is  a 
practical  problem  for  statesmen.  It  is  not  always 
possible  to  get  all  nations  to  agree  as  to  what  is 
right  and  what  is  fair  and  it  is  this  very  disagree- 
ment that  has  led  to  the  ordeal  of  battle,  the  arbi- 
trament of  arms. 

There  is  a  justification  for  the  use  of  force  and 
the  justification  is  purpose.  The  ethics  of  force 
hinges  upon  the  question,  For  what  purpose  is 
force  being  used?  The  simple  fact  is  that  nations 
do  use  their  armies  and  navies  to  defend  them- 
selves. The  further  fact  is  that  they  also  use  them 
to  accomplish  purposes  less  commendable,  and 
there  is  every  likelihood  that  they  will  continue  to 
use  them  against  one  another  unless  and  until  some 
better  road  to  Justice  is  built  and  macadamised. 
Recognising  the  absolute  privilege  of  the  pacifist 
to  hold  an  adverse  opinion,  respecting  his  con- 
science and  admiring  his  courage,  the  League 
would,  nevertheless,  without  moral  compunctions, 


164  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

not  hesitate  to  employ  force  in  defence  of  civilisa- 
tion as  against  any  outlaw  nation. 

The  third  objection  to  the  programme  of  the 
League  is  that  its  name  says  it  is  a  League  to  En- 
force "  Peace."  But  perhaps  it  may  be  well  before 
proceeding  further  to  remind  ourselves  that  a  name, 
after  all,  is  only  a  name.  The  League's  name  is  a 
case  in  point.  The  word  "  peace  "  surely  ought  to 
be  somewhere  in  the  name  of  the  society;  first,  be- 
cause its  aim  is  peace  and  second,  because  it  solicits 
the  support  of  the  moderate  pacifists  and  would  at- 
tract them  by  its  name  as  well  as  by  its  programme. 
Perhaps  it  would  have  been  a  more  accurate  de- 
scription to  have  called  it  a  "League  to  Enforce 
Pause,"  as  Roland  Hugins  suggests,1  but  there  are 
not  very  many  pause-ists  whose  support  would  be 
an  immediately  available  asset. 

It  may  help  towards  a  better  understanding  to 
emphasise  that  there  are  several  things  desirable 
in  themselves  that  the  League  will  not  try  to  en- 
force. It  will  be  noticed  that  it  is  not  called  a 
League  to  Enforce  Democracy.  Probably  a  con- 
siderable majority  of  the  members  of  the  organisa- 
tion and  like-as-not  all  the  officers  and  executives 
are  personally  convinced  that  if  the  nations  of  the 
i  The  Possible  Peace,  p.  115. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  165 

world  were  all  democratic,  if  domestic  affairs  and 
foreign  policies  were  controlled  by  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people,  if  diplomacy  and  industry  and 
finance  were,  as  we  say,  democratised,  war  would  be 
a  remote  contingency.1  The  reforms  of  this  char- 
acter that  have  already  been  accomplished  in  Rus- 
sia, the  reforms  that  are  more  than  likely  to  be 
accomplished  in  Germany,  gladden  the  hearts  of 
liberals  everywhere.  But  democracy  is  social 
character  and  character  cannot  be  imputed  by 
grace  of  any  Jefferson  or  Rousseau.  It  is  nobody's 
gift;  it  cannot  be  presented  to  a  people  with  the 
compliments  of  a  King.  It  is  bought  with  a  price 
—  a  price  that  is  far  above  rubies  —  with  ages  of 
struggle  and  suffering.  It  is  growth,  development, 
education,  victory!  To  paraphrase  Malvolio,  no 
nation  is  born  democratic,  nor  can  any  nation  have 
democracy  thrust  upon  it, —  it  must  achieve  de- 
mocracy. Even  were  it  possible  to  do  so  it  would 
be  a  mistake  to  enforce  democracy. 

i  In  an  interview  published  in  the  New  York  World  for  Novem- 
ber 5,  1916,  President  Wilson  said :  "  I  am  convinced  that  only 
governments  initiate  such  wars  as  the  present  one  and  that  they 
are  never  brought  on  by  peoples,  and  that,  therefore,  democracy 
is  the  best  prevention  of  such  jealousies  and  suspicions  and 
secret  intrigues  as  produce  wars  among  nations  where  small 
groups  control  rather  than  the  great  body  of  public  opinion." 
This  pronouncement  is  consistent  with  a  remark  which  Montes- 
quieu makes  in  his  celebrated  Spirit  of  Laws  (Book  IX,  p.  127), 
to  the  effect  that  the  spirit  of  monarchy  is  war  and  enlargement 
of  dominion,  while  that  of  a  republic  is  peace  and  moderation. 


166  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

Nor  is  the  League  called  a  League  to  Enforce 
Justice.  This,  too,  is  of  great  importance.  It  has 
been  said  l  that  "  justice  is  love  with  its  eyes  open." 
And  there  is  little  doubt  that  if  absolute  justice 
could  be  insured  to  all  nations  and  peoples  that 
would  be  the  surest  guaranty  of  lasting  peace. 
What  a  pity  that  Maeterlinck's  fantasy  is  not  a 
fact.  It  will  be  recalled  that  when  the  children 
in  the  Blue  Bird  sto*fy  reached  the  Kingdom  of  the 
Future  they  saw  "  a  little  pink  child,  who  looks  so 
serious  and  is  sucking  his  thumb,"  and  who  when 
born  "will  wipe  out  injustice  from  the  earth." 
The  time  may  come,  and  it  may  come  sooner  than 
we  expect,  when  a  World  Court  will  be  set-up 
which  will  dispense  perfect  justice  to  men  and 
nations,  a  court  whose  judgments  and  decisions 
will  be  executed  by  the  Supreme  Authority  of  Pub- 
lic Opinion  and  endorsed  by  the  Moral  Conscience 
of  Mankind.  Every  nation,  great  and  small,  free 
and  subject,  would  have  its  day  in  such  a  Court 
and  Perfect  Right  would  be  upheld  by  Perfect 
Might.  But  the  League's  programme  is  not  so 
ambitious.  It  does  not  say  that  the  award  of  the 
Judicial  Tribunal  or  the  compromise  suggestion  of 
the  Court  of  Conciliation  must  be  accepted. 

i  Norman  Hapgood,  editorial  in  Collier's  Weekly. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  167 

The  League  believes  with  its  President,  Mr. 
Taft,  that  "  after  we  have  gotten  the  cases  into 
Court  and  decided  and  the  judgments  embodied 
in  a  solemn  declaration  of  a  Court  thus  established, 
few  nations  will  care  to  face  the  condemnation  of 
international  public  opinion  and  disobey  the  judg- 
ment." 1  But  if  the  condemnation  of  the  whole 
world  proved  incapable  of  restraining  a  nation  bent 
on  war  after  the  decisions  of  the  Court  or  Council 
had  gone  against  it,  then  force  would  not  be  em- 
ployed to  compel  obedience.  As  Cosmos  says  in 
his  Twelfth  Article  in  the  New  York  Times.2  "  If 
the  publicity  attending  the  operation  of  such  a 
court,  the  inherent  and  persuasive  reasonableness 
of  its  findings,  and  a  body  of  international  public 
opinion  that  has  turned  with  conviction  to  the 
judicial  settlement  of  international  disputes,  can- 
not insure  the  carrying  into  effect  of  the  judg- 
ments of  an  International  Court  of  Justice,  then 
the  world  is  not  ready  for  such  a  court." 

Nor  is  the  League  called  a  League  to  Enforce 
the  Status  Quo.  In  other  words  it  does  not  guar- 
antee to  preserve  present  conditions  nor  would  it 
deem  it  desirable  to  guarantee  the  preservation  of 

1  See  The  United  States  and  Peace,  p.  150. 

2  December  6,  1016.    Republished  in  book   form   under  the 
title  The  Basis  of  a  Durable  Peace. 


168  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

present  conditions.  And  this  is  not  a  mere  nega- 
tive virtue.  It  provides  "  a  way  of  escape  "  from 
intolerable  situations  without  the  necessity  for 
war,  a  peaceful  method  for  changing  conditions, 
and,  failing  these,  the  door  would  still  be  open  for 
the  final  appeal  to  arms.  For  there  are  many  men 
who  are  not  Chauvinists,  who  are  not  militarists, 
who  maintain,  and  rightly,  that  there  are  occasions 
which  arise  when  wars  are  justifiable,  when  they 
remedy  conditions  that  are  unendurable,  condi- 
tions worse  than  war  itself.1  Such  instances  were 
the  War  of  the  Rebellion  and  the  War  to  Abolish 
Slavery.  There  are  therefore  occasions,  very  rare 
it  is  true,  when  it  might  be  positively  harmful  to 
enforce  peace  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  status  quo, 
to  prevent  the  possibility  of  a  righteous  and  nec- 
essary revolutionary  war.  "  Rebellion  to  tyranny 
is  obedience  to  God." 

The  answer  to  the  question  of  the  feasibility  of 
the  League's  programme,  involving  certain  other 
objections  to  its  proposals  than  those  which  have 
already  been  considered,  may  be  reached  by  an  al- 
together different  route. 

i "  Knowing  well  what  war  means  in  suffering,  in  burdens,  in 
horrors,  they  [the  Allies]  have  still  decided  that  even  w.-ir  is 
better  than  peace  at  the  Prussian  price  of  domination  over  Eu- 
rope."—  Premier  Lloyd-George  in  a  speech  at  the  Guildhall, 
January  11,  1917. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  169 

Speaking  broadly  there  are  two  classes  of  critics : 
those  who  complain  that  the  League  is  attempting 
too  much  and  those  who  complain  that  it  is  not  at- 
tempting enough.  Both  groups  are  entitled  to 
have  their  criticisms  treated  with  respect.  The  first 
group  —  those  who  claim  that  the  League  would 
go  too  far  —  mean  that  the  scheme  is  visionary,  that 
it  "  is  a  dream,  and  not  even  a  beautiful  dream."  * 
This  point  of  view  is  plainly  stated  by  Professor 
Ellory  C.  Stowell,  of  Columbia  University.  In  the 
course  of  a  column  interview  in  the  New  York 
Times,2  he  said  that  "  when  peace  is  concluded  it 
is  probable  that  an  attempt  to  form  a  league  to 
enforce  peace  may  be  made,  but  it  cannot  hope  for 
any  more  successful  career  than  its  famous  pre- 
decessor, the  Holy  Alliance.  It  is  an  out  of  date 
chimera." 

It  is  true  that  the  enthusiasm  and  radicalism 
of  youth  need  to  be  balanced  with  the  sobriety  and 
conservatism  of  maturity;  but  it  is  no  less  true 
that  the  pride  of  practicality  is  prejudice  when  it 
is  not  pretence.  Man  does  not  live  by  bread  alone ; 
he  must  have  "bread  and  roses  too."  It  is  the 
dreamer  who  writes  the  romance  of  reality  —  in 

1  Von  Moltke. 

2  December  21, 1916. 


170  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

art,  and  science,  and  discovery,  and  invention,  and 
constructive  reform.  We  should  not  forget  that 
democracy  was  once  a  dream,  that  liberty  was  once 
a  dream,  that  the  destruction  of  the  great  plagues 
was  once  a  dream,  that  universal  education  was 
once  a  dream;  that  Joseph  was  a  dreamer, —  and 
Disraeli,  and  Lincoln,  and  Fulton,  and  Edison. 
Peace  may  be  a  dream  but  it  is  more  than  an  "  ir- 
idescent dream." 

And  then,  too,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
there  are  dreamers  and  dreamers.  There  are  mor- 
bid dreamers  and  healthy  dreamers ;  those  who  look 
upward  merely,  and  those  who  look  forward  also; 
those  who  deny  the  hard  facts,  and  those  who  make 
the  hard  facts  malleable  to  their  wills.  Right  now 
there  are  quite  a  few  people  in  the  world  who  may 
indeed  be  classified  as  idealists  but  who  stubbornly 
refuse  to  yield  to  the  temptation  to  make  bread  out 
of  stones.  It  seems  to  them,  just  as  a  matter  of 
common  sense,  that  lots  better  bread  can  be  made 
out  of  whole  wheat  and  that  stones  ought  to  be 
used  for  building  cathedrals  and  houses  for  people 
to  live  in.  They  refuse  absolutely  to  make  dreams 
their  master, —  these  hard-headed  dreamers  who 
are  the  advance  agents  of  civilisation.  These  men 
and  women  believe  in  universal  peace,  in  the  same 


WILL  IT  WORK?  171 

way  that  they  believe  in  absolute  justice  and  ulti- 
mate democracy,  as  a  final  goal  of  human  en- 
deavour ;  but  they  have  no  wish 

To  grasp  this  sorry  Scheme  of  Things  entire, 
.  .  .  and  shatter  it  to  bits  —  and  then 
Re-mould  it  nearer  to  the  Heart's  Desire! 

They  have  the  "will  to  believe"  and  with  their 
will  they  control  their  faith.  Eeal  faith  is  never 
in  a  hurry;  it  can  bide  its  time.  Mine  hour  hath 
not  yet  come,  said  the  patient  Jesus.  To-day  there 
are  many  practical  people  —  people  who  are  not 
disobedient  to  the  heavenly  vision  —  who  prefer, 
while  waiting  for  the  dawning  of  millennium,  to 
get  busy  and  to  keep  busy  making  the  desert  blos- 
som with  harvests.  They  feel  that  it  is  all  very 
well  to  hitch  our  wagon  to  a  star;  but  that  we 
ought  to  keep  tight  hold  of  the  reins  and  not  let 
our  imagination  run  away  with  our  judgment.  It 
is  true,  as  Mr.  Asquith  said  in  a  speech  at  Dublin,1 
that  such  a  partnership  of  nations  enforcing  pub- 
lic right  by  the  power  of  a  common  will,  would 
have  sounded  like  a  Utopian  idea  just  before  the 
war,  though  now  it  is  within  the  range  if  not  within 
the  grasp  of  statesmanship. 

Another  reason  why  the  League's  plan  is  said 

i  See  Appendix,  p.  284. 


172  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

to  go  too  far  is  that  it  would  actually  use  force  to 
maintain  order.  This  objection  to  the  use  of  force 
comes  from  an  entirely  different  group  and  has 
been  treated,  it  will  be  recalled,  in  considerable 
detail  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  chapter.  One 
phase  of  the  subject,  however,  was  not  discussed. 
A  word  may  be  said  about  it  here.  The  point  is 
made  that  it  is  anomalous,  that  it  is  a  perversion, 
to  make  war  in  order  to  prevent  war;  and  it  does 
seem  a  bit  paradoxical.  Much  depends,  of  course, 
on  just  what  you  mean  by  "  make  war."  1  It  is 
possible  for  political  rivals  to  hold  that  the  pres- 
ent Administration  "  made  war  "  on  Mexico  because 
on  April  20,  1914,  the  President  went  to  Congress 
to  obtain  its  approval  for  landing  troops  at  Vera 
Cruz.  But  you  can't  very  well  make  war  on  a 
people  with  whom  you  genuinely  sympathise,  a 
people  that  you  are  trying  to  help.  Of  course 
words  can  be  stretched  to  cover  almost  any  mean- 
ing, but  it  ought  to  be  perfectly  clear  that  there 
is  all  the  difference  in  the  world  between  this  na- 
tion or  any  other  nation  "  going  to  war  "  and  band- 

i  When  the  three  Powers  —  Russia,  France,  and  Great  Britain 
—  by  the-Treaty  of  1827  transformed  a  Turkish  province  into  an 
independent  kingdom,  selected  a  king,  and  even  went  so  far  as  to 
destroy  the  Turkish  fleet  at  Xavarino  by  means  of  a  "  pacific  " 
blockade,  they  were  not  (as  they  protested)  "making  war"  on 
Turkey. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  173 

ing  itself  with  others  to  keep  the  public  peace  and 
to  quell  rioters  —  if  necessary  by  force  of  arms. 
It  is  the  latter  and  not  the  former  which  the  League 
would  undertake  to  do. 

The  third  reason  for  the  belief  that  the  League's 
programme  is  impracticable  is  the  difficulty,  if  not 
the  impossibility,  of  determining  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty which  nation  is  the  aggressor, —  who  started 
the  fight?  If  the  plan  of  the  League  is  made 
operative  no  nation  that  did  not  want  to  incur  the 
disapproval  of  the  civilised  world,  no  nation  that 
had  not  completely  made  up  its  mind  to  throw  down 
the  gauntlet  and  challenge  a  dozen  nations  at  once, 
would  be  likely  to  take  any  chance  of  being  thought 
the  aggressor.  It  would  spare  no  pains  to  avoid 
suspicion.  It  would  be  perfectly  possible  for  any 
nation  not  seeking  war  to  move  all  of  its  forces 
back  a  certain  distance  from  the  frontier  so  that 
the  exact  locis  of  the  initial  engagement,  on  any 
considerable  scale,  could  be  determined  without 
difficulty.  Then,  too,  the  voluntary  submission  by 
one  nation  of  the  matter  in  dispute  to  the  Court 
or  Council,  for  arbitration  or  adjustment,  would 
put  the  burden  of  blame  upon  the  other  nation 
which  refused  to  submit  its  case.  The  first  thing 
to  do  would  be  to  stop  the  fighting  for  the  time  be- 


174      A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ing,  even  if  it  became  necessary  to  hold  back  both 
nations  until  the  case  had  had  a  hearing  and  a 
verdict  was  given. 

If  the  point  is  pressed  that  the  League  is  at- 
tempting too  much,  that  it  would  go  too  far,  then 
it  ought  to  be  clearly  stated  in  reply  that  there  are, 
as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  several  things 
which  the  League  does  not  propose  to  do.  After 
mature  consideration  it  has  refused  to  go  as  far 
as  many  other  admirable  societies  and  groups, 
whose  programmes  are  urged  upon  the  statesmen. 
For  example,  the  four  cardinal  principles  of  The 
Union  of  Democratic  Control,  in  England,  are: 

1.  No  Province  shall  be  transferred  from  one 
Government  to  another  without  the  consent,  by 
plebiscite  or  otherwise,  of  the  population  of  such 
Province. 

2.  No  Treaty,  Arrangement,  or  Understanding 
shall  be  entered  upon  in  the  name  of  Great  Britain 
without   the   sanction   of   Parliament.     Adequate 
machinery    for    ensuring    democratic    control    of 
foreign  policy  shall  be  created. 

3.  The  Foreign  Policy  of  Great  Britain  shall 
not  be  aimed  at  creating  Alliances  for  the  purpose 
of  maintaining  the  Balance  of  Power;  but  shall  be 
directed  to  concerted  action  between  the  Powers, 


WILL  IT  WORK?  175 

and  the  setting  up  of  an  International  Council, 
whose  deliberations  and  decisions  shall  be  public, 
with  such  machinery  for  securing  international 
agreement  as  shall  be  the  guarantee  of  an  abiding 
peace. 

4.  Great  Britain  shall  propose  as  part  of  the 
Peace  settlement  a  plan  for  drastic  reduction,  by 
consent,  of  the  armaments  of  all  the  belligerent 
Powers,  and  to  facilitate  that  policy  shall  attempt 
to  secure  the  general  nationalisation  of  the  man- 
ufacture of  armaments,  and  the  control  of  the  ex- 
port of  armaments  by  one  country  to  another. 

It  will  be  observed  that  a  proposal  which  plans 
for  disarmament,  or  at  least  for  drastic  reduction 
of  armaments,  is  included.  Now  it  may  be  that 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  is  mistaken,  it  may 
be  that  the  nations  are  ready  to  begin  a  simultan- 
eous reduction  of  armaments;  but  it  seems  hardly 
likely.  And  this  is  one  reason  why  the  League 
does  not  include  among  its  proposals  a  definite  de- 
mand for  disarmament.1  It  is  not  because  dis- 
armament would  not  be  desirable,  but  because  it 
is  thought  that  it  would  not  be  feasible.  Never- 
theless, a  gradual  limitation  of  armaments  would 
almost  certainly  result  from  the  acceptance  and 

i  Cp.  Chapter  X,  p.  125. 


176  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

operation  of  the  League's  proposals,  because  the 
fear  of  sudden  attack  would  be  eliminated.  It 
would  not,  however,  require  the  immediate  and 
complete  disarmament  of  the  nations  that  joined 
the  League,  nor  would  it  make  it  a  sine  qua  non  of 
membership. 

Another  thing  that  the  League  does  not  propose 
to  do  is  to  meddle  in  any  way  with  the  domestic 
affairs  or  internal  policies  of  its  nation-members. 
It  would  begin  with  things  as  they  are  in  respect 
to  sovereign  and  subject  peoples,  and  in  respect  to 
many  other  things.  Changes  will  doubtless  come 
in  the  future  and  more  than  likely  the  Court,  Coun- 
cil, and  Ministry  will,  one  or  all,  have  some  share 
in  controlling  these  changes;  but  no  proposal  of 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  contemplates  action 
that  would  interfere  in  connection  with  insurrec- 
tions, rebellions,  or  revolutions  within  the  bounds 
of  any  of  its  members.  And  the  reason  why  it 
would  not  is  because  it  conceives  of  itself  as  being 
in  the  nature  of  a  quasi-international  police  force,1 
empowered  to  exercise  the  police  function  of  keep- 
ing the  peace  in  much  the  same  way  that  police- 
men, sheriffs,  committees  of  public  safety  and  vigi- 
lance committees  take  it  to  be  their  primary  duty 

i  Cp.  Chapter  XI,  p.  136. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  177 

not  to  reform  malefactors  but  to  maintain  law  and 
order.  Policemen  do  not  intrude  on  the  privacy  of 
homes  and  families  unless  and  until  the  trouble 
seems  likely  to  spread  to  such  an  extent  as  to  endan- 
ger the  lives  and  property  of  the  community. 

It  is  not  always  going  to  be  an  easy  task  to  draw 
the  line.  Practically  the  same  difficulties  will  be 
encountered  that  now  beset  the  path  of  jurists  and 
statesmen  in  the  "league  of  nations"  which  is 
called  the  United  States  of  America.  The  conun- 
drum, When  is  a  local  issue  not  a  local  issue?  has 
bothered  the  brains  of  more  than  one  lawmaker 
and  interpreter.  General  Hancock  said  that  the 
tariff  is  a  local  issue  and  it  is  —  lots  more  than  it 
ought  to  be;  but  then  again  it  is  a  national  and 
even  an  international  issue.  Was  slavery  a  local 
issue?  Southerners  thought  it  was  and  they  were 
right  —  and  they  were  wrong.  And  so  it  goes.  It 
is  a  very  delicate  matter  which  will  require  no  end 
of  skill,  this  fixing  the  bounds  between  affairs  and 
issues  that  are  purely  domestic  and  policies  and 
practices  that,  if  persisted  in,  may  put  the  times 
out  of  joint. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  fact  that 
the  League  would  not  attempt  to  enforce  the  de- 
cisions or  awards  of  the  Court  or  Council,  nor 


178  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

would  it  enforce  permanent  peace  and  guarantee 
the  perpetuity  of  the  status  quo.  And  now  finally 
—  in  reply  to  those  who  complain  that  the  League 
is  trying  to  do  too  much  —  it  should  be  plainly 
written  down  and  underscored  in  red  that  the 
League  has  no  diagram  of  duty  for  the  nations, 
no  pattern  on  the  mount,  no  plans  and  specifica- 
tions for  constructing,  at  The  Hague,  or  on  any 
other  site  anywhere  on  the  planet,  an  ideal  world 
order.  No  effort  is  made  by  the  League  to  cloak 
the  obvious  fact  that  its  proposals  do  not  constitute 
an  ideal  arrangement.  It  probably  would  be  bet- 
ter to  require  all  the  nations  to  accept  and  abide 
by  the  decisions  of  the  established  Courts  and 
Councils.  But  there  are  plenty  of  courses  of  ac- 
tion that  are  theoretically  preferable  to  those  that 
are  practically  possible,  and  it  is  the  conscious  de- 
sire and  determined  will  of  the  League  not  to  at- 
tempt more  than  can  be  achieved.  For  example, 
without  the  reservation  of  the  right  to  reject  the 
award  and  appeal  to  force,  it  is  very  doubtful  if 
any  of  the  great  nations  could  be  persuaded  or 
induced  to  enter  such  a  league  of  nations  at  this 
time.  And  the  thing  of  paramount  importance 
just  now  is  not  to  perform  the  miracle  of  spontane- 


WILL  IT  WORK?  179 

ous  international  government,  but  to  take  the  next 
step  in  the  direction  of  world  order.  To  some  it 
may  be  discouraging  that  more  is  not  attempted, 
but  if  this  much  is  both  attempted  and  achieved, 
there  is  no  one  who  will  deny  that  it  is  infinitely 
better  than  the  present  anarchy  and  the  almost  cer- 
tain recurrence  of  wars. 

We  have  considered  at  some  length  the  objec- 
tions of  those  who  complain  that  the  League  is  at- 
tempting the  impossible.  There  are  also  some 
whose  objections  are  based  on  the  assertion  that 
the  League's  programme  does  not  attempt  nearly 
enough.  It  is  true,  as  has  been  explained,  that  it 
does  not  attempt  to  create  instanter  "  a  parliament 
of  man,  a  federation  of  the  world,"  it  does  not  pur- 
pose to  enforce  justice*  or  democracy,  or  the  status 
quo;  it  will  not,  by  military  force,  compel  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  decisions  of  its  Court  or  Council. 
And  the  reason  why  it  will  not  undertake  these 
tasks,  is  because  it  wants  to  concentrate  its  total 
energy,  because  it  wants  the  whole  world  to  hear 
"  one  clear  call."  This  one  thing  it  would  do.  It 
has  no  wish  to  sit  by  the  side  of  the  road  and  watch 
the  world  pass  by.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  more 
than  anxious  to  get  up  and  go  somewhere,  but  it 


180  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

is  satisfied  that  the  next  step  is  to  enforce  delay 
by  compelling  the  submission  of  disputes  before 
war  is  begun. 

There  is  still  another  way  to  approach  the  sub- 
ject in  the  effort  to  clear  up  all  misunderstand- 
ings. Those  who  oppose  the  proposal  of  such  a 
league  of  nations,  not  because  it  is  undesirable  but 
because  they  think  it  is  impracticable,  say  in  an- 
swer to  the  question,  Why  will  it  not  work? 
that  there  are  three  reasons  why  it  won't  work: 
First,  it  is  said  that  the  scheme  is  chimerical  be- 
cause you  can't  get  the  nations  to  join  such  a 
league  as  is  proposed;  second,  because  the  great 
nations  will  not  submit  major  questions;  and 
third,  because  the  nations  that  become  signatories 
to  such  a  treaty  creating  a  league  of  nations  will 
not  keep  faith  when  the  crisis  comes. 

Take  the  first  reason  advanced.  Does  it  seem 
likely  that  so  many  hard-headed  business  men,  men 
of  practical  affairs,  would  be  giving  their  cordial 
approval  to  the  idea  if  it  were  so  impractical? 
Some  of  the  best  brains  in  this  and  other  countries 
have  voiced  their  approval  of  the  programme.  The 
list  includes  editors,  educators,  lawyers,  clergy- 
men, bankers,  legislators,  judges  and  statesmen.1 
i  See  Appendix,  p.  263,  for  commendatory  statements  in  full. 


WILL  IT  WOKK?  181 

Among  those  who  have  written  or  spoken  in  praise 
of  the  plan  are  President  Wilson,  ex-President 
Taft,  Premier  Lloyd-George,1  ex-Premier  Asquith, 
Premier  Briand,  Chancellor  Bethmann-Hollweg, 
Mr.  Balfour,  Lord  Grey  and  Viscount  Bryce. 

It  will  not  escape  notice  that  among  those  who 
have  expressed  themselves  as  friendly  to  the  idea 
of  such  a  league  to  enforce  peace  at  the  close  of 
this  war  are  several  Government  officials.  Their 
personal  utterances  do  not  necessarily  commit  the 
nations  they  represent,  but  they  at  least  fore- 
shadow the  probability  of  favourable  Government 
action.2  So  much  by  way  of  answer  to  those  who 

iln  his  Guildhall  speech  of  January  11,  1917,  the  English 
Prime  Minister  said,  "  The  peace  and  security  for  peace  will  be 
that  the  nations  will  band  themselves  together  to  punish  the  first 
peacebreaker  who  comes  out." — Reported  in  the  New  York 
Times,  January  12,  1917. 

2  An  official  pronouncement  on  the  subject  was  made  in  the 
Note  of  the  Entente  Powers  dated  January  10,  1917,  in  reply  to 
President  Wilson's  Note  of  December  18.  The  second  para- 
graph reads  as  follows :  "  In  a  general  way  they  desire  to  de- 
clare their  respect  for  the  lofty  sentiments  inspiring  the  Amer- 
ican note  and  their  whole-hearted  agreement  with  the  proposal 
to  create  a  league  of  nations  which  shall  assure  peace  and  justice 
throughout  the  world.  They  recognise  all  the  benefits  which 
will  accrue  to  the  cause  of  humanity  and  civilisation  from  the 
institution  of  international  arrangements  designed  to  prevent 
violent  conflicts  between  nations  and  so  framed  as  to  provide  the 
sanctions  necessary  to  their  enforcement,  lest  an  illusory  security 
should  serve  merely  to  facilitate  fresh  acts  of  aggression."  The 
passage  in  President  Wilson's  Note  to  which  this  paragraph  evi- 
dently refers  reads  as  follows :  "  In  the  measures  to  be  taken 
to  secure  the  future  peace  of  the  world  the  people  and  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  are  as  vitally  and  as  directly  inter- 
ested as  the  Governments  now  at  war.  Their  interest,  more- 


182  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

say  the  plan  won't  work  because  the  nations  can- 
not be  induced  to  enter  such  a  league. 

A  second  group  gives  another  reason  why  it  be- 
lieves the  League's  programme  will  not  work,  and 
that  reason  is  because  you  can't  get  the  great  na- 
tions to  submit  major  questions  for  arbitration  or 
conciliatory  treatment.  It  may  be  said  in  reply 
that  great  nations  have  submitted  major  questions 
for  inquiry  and  arbitration  and,  what  is  more,  they 
have  accepted  the  decisions  and  have  bowed  to  the 
judgment  of  the  court.  A  case  in  point  was  the 
Hull  affair.1 

There  are  many  matters,  open  to  dispute  and 
discussion,  that  would  not,  strictly  speaking,  fall 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  League.  For  exam- 
ple, England  would,  in  no  sense,  bind  herself  to 
submit  to  an  International  Council  the  question 
of  Home  Rule  for  Ireland.  The  case  is  somewhat 
different  when  we  come  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 
This  is  the  way  the  question  is  usually  asked,  Is 
the  United  States  ready  to  submit  the  Monroe 

over,  in  the  means  to  be  adopted  to  relieve  the  smaller  and 
weaker  peoples  of  the  world  of  the  peril  of  wrong  and  violence  is 
as  quick  and  ardent  as  that  of  any  other  people  or  Government. 
They  stand  ready  and  even  eager,  to  co-operate  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  these  ends  when  the  war  is  over  with  every  influ- 
ence and  resource  at  their  command." 

i  See  Appendix,  p.  302,  for  a  full  statement  of  the  facts  in  this 
case. 


WILL  IT  WORK?  188 

Doctrine  to  arbitration,  if  some  European  nation 
happens  to  consider  it  a  dog  in  the  manger  policy? 
First  of  all  we  ought  to  keep  in  mind  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  functions  of  the  Judicial  Tribunal 
and  the  Council  of  Conciliation :  the  Court  to  deal 
with  justiciable  questions,  questions  which  it  is  pos- 
sible to  decide  by  established  international  law; 
the  Council  to  deal  with  non-justiciable  questions, 
questions  such  as  national  policy  and  necessary 
expansion.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  a  part  of 
international  law;  it  is  a  part  of  American  policy. 
So  we  really  do  not  have  to  consider  the  question 
as  posed:  Is  the  United  States  ready  to  submit 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  for  arbitration?  The  answer 
to  this  hypothetical  question  would  be,  No,  it  is 
not.  Clearly  that  is  why  the  United  States  when 
it  signed  The  Hague  Convention  (1907)  for  the 
Pacific  Settlement  of  International  Disputes  made 
the  express  reservation :  "  Nothing  contained  in 
this  Convention  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  require 
the  United  States  of  America  to  depart  from  its 
traditional  policy  of  not  intruding  upon,  interfer- 
ing with,  or  entangling  itself  in  the  political  ques- 
tions or  policy  or  internal  administration  of  any 
foreign  state;  nor  shall  anything  contained  in  the 
said  convention  be  construed  to  imply  a  relinquish- 


184  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ment  by  the  United  States  of  America  of  its  tradi- 
tional attitude  toward  purely  American  questions." 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  United  States  is  now 
under  contract,  by  treaties  with  some  thirty  nations, 
including  France,  Great  Britain,  and  Russia,  to 
do  precisely  this,  namely  to  refer  for  investigation 
and  report  to  an  international  commission  all  dis- 
putes between  them  of  every  nature  whatsoever, 
when  diplomatic  methods  of  adjustment  have 
failed.  And  what  is  more,  we  have  solemnly 
agreed  not  to  declare  war  or  begin  hostilities  dur- 
ing such  investigation  and  before  the  report  is 
submitted.  A  little  study  of  our  own  existing 
treaties  in  comparison  with  the  League's  pro- 
gramme will  convince  any  fair  and  intelligent  critic 
that  the  second  proposal  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  would  commit  the  United  States  as  much  as, 
and  no  more  than,  it  is  already  committed  insofar 
as  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  concerned  or  involved. 

If  anything  further  needs  to  be  said  we  may  add 
that  when  it  is  clearly  understood  that  most  major 
questions  (points  of  national  honour  and  matters 
of  policy)  would  not  go  to  the  Court  but  to  the 
Council,  and  when,  furthermore,  it  is  clearly 
grasped  that  the  recommendation  for  compromise 
growing  out  of  the  "  hearing  and  consideration  " 


WILL  IT  WORK?  185 

may  be  rejected  if  that  is  the  judgment  and  will  of 
the  nation  involved,  there  would  certainly  be  less, 
and  would  probably  be  little,  if  any,  reluctance  to 
submit  them. 

The  third,  and  last,  reason  given  in  the  argu- 
ment against  the  League's  programme,  as  imprac- 
ticable, is  that  you  cannot  be  at  all  sure  that  the 
nations,  after  they  have  signed  such  an  agreement, 
will  make  good  the  bonds  they  have  given,  will 
abide  by  their  agreements.  This  is,  of  course,  the 
question  pf  good  faith  in  the  observance  of  treaties ; 
it  is  to  raise  doubts  as  to  the  honour  of  the  signa- 
tories. And  to  assume,  as  is  assumed  when  the 
question  is  raised,  that  they  will  not  keep  their 
plighted  word,  is  an  assumption  that  is  not  war- 
ranted by  history  or  precedent.  Without  such 
faith  it  would  be  impossible  to  conduct  modern 
business  of  any  kind.  Why  have  treaties  at  all, 
if,  in  advance,  it  is  assumed  that  they  are  but 
scraps  of  paper?  It  may  be  interesting,  and  it  is 
certainly  pertinent  in  this  connection,  to  point  out 
that  there  were  between  eight  hundred  and  nine 
hundred  treaties  concluded  between  the  years  1874 
and  1883,  and  that  of  this  total  by  far  the  greater 
number  were  all  scrupulously  carried  out. 


PART  III 
THE  CREED  OF  MILITARISM 


CHAPTER  xni 

MORAL  MAJESTY  OR  GUILTY  MADNESS? 

THE  first  article  in  the  creed  of  militarism  says 
that  War  is  Desirable.  And  what  is  militarism? 
The  celebrated  German  editor,  Maximilian  Harden, 
recently  said,  "  Only  statesmen  can  add  up  the  pos- 
sibilities and  arrive  at  the  necessities.  Only  they 
can  be  allowed  to  decide  with  what  weapons  and 
up  to  what  end  the  war  is  to  be  conducted.  It  is 
only  in  Germany  that  these  principles  are  disputed. 
Is  it  because  militarism  really  reigns  among 
us  .  .  .  ?  Militarism  is  a  form  of  civilisation  and 
a  state  of  mind.  It  presses  for  ever  stronger  arma- 
ments, and  accustoms  even  the  ordinary  citizen  to 
the  idea  that  weapons  alone  can  settle  a  strife  of 
peoples,  and  that  any  other  tool  is  unworthy  and 
useless.  Heroism  and  military  virtue  can  flourish 
without  militarism,  but  militarism  alone  guaran- 
tees the  constant  readiness  of  all  the  limbs  of  the 
people's  body  for  rapid  transition  from  peace  to 
war.  It  is  because  militarism  favours  the  temp- 
tation to  war,  and  must  either  extend  its  depreda- 

189 


190   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

tions  far  and  wide  or  be  rooted  out  absolutely,  that 
the  war  is  to  continue  until  militarism  has  been 
destroyed.  That  is  what  all  the  enemies  of  the 
German  Empire  say  out  loud  and  what  all  neutral 
powers  say  in  whispers."  1 

Now  there  are  indeed  many  alleged  benefits  of 
war,  nor  can  it  be  altogether  denied  that  often- 
times good  does  flow  from  evil.  But  to-day  it  would 
seem  that  the  silent  protest  of  six  million  dead, 
whose  voices  are  choked  with  dust,  ought  to  be  an 
all-sufficient  answer  to  those  who  still  prate  about 
the  value  and  benefits  of  war.  Contrast  for  a  mo- 
ment the  moral  majesty  of  war,  as  proclaimed  by 
Treitschke  and  others,  with  the  guilty  madness  of 
war  as  revealed  in  half-a-world  in  ruins,  in  wrecked 
homes,  in  demolished  cathedrals,  in  burned  cities,  in 
devastated  fields,  in  torpedoed  liners,  in  hobbling 
cripples,  and  in  broken  hearts  that  are  doomed  to 
suffer  the  pangs  of  unavailing  grief.  How  vain 
and  hollow  the  praises  of  war  sound  in  our  ears 
grown  too  accustomed  to  the  sobs  and  groans  of 
the  dying. 

"  Let  us  cling  with  love,"  wrote  Ernest  Renan, 
"  to  our  custom  of  fighting  from  time  to  time  be- 

i  Die  Zukunft  for  October  21, 1916.  Reported  in  the  New  fork 
Times  for  November  8, 191G. 


MOEAL  MAJESTY  OR  MADNESS?      191 

cause  war  is  the  necessary  occasion  and  place  for 
manifesting  moral  force."  *  Raskin,  in  his  essay  on 
"War,"  eloquently  remarked  that,  "All  the  pure 
and  noble  arts  of  peace  are  founded  on  war;  no 
great  art  ever  yet  rose  on  earth,  but  among  a  na- 
tion of  soldiers.  There  is  no  art  among  a  shepherd 
people,  if  it  remains  at  peace.  .  .  .  There  is  no 
great  art  possible  but  that  which  is  based  on  battle. 
.  .  .  We  talk  of  peace  and  learning,  of  peace  and 
plenty,  of  peace  and  civilisation;  but  I  found  that 
those  were  not  the  words  which  the  Muse  of  His- 
tory coupled  together;  that  on  her  lips  the  words 
were  —  peace  and  sensuality  —  peace  and  selfish- 
ness—  peace  and  death  ...  all  great  nations 
learned  their  truth  of  word,  and  strength  of 
thought,  in  war;  .  .  .  they  were  nourished  in  war, 
and  wasted  by  peace;  taught  by  war,  and  deceived 
by  peace;  trained  by  war,  and  betrayed  by  peace 
—  in  a  word,  they  were  born  in  war,  and  expired 
in  peace."  2 

"  We  have  learned  to  perceive,"  sings  Treitschke 
in  one  of  his  impassioned  paeons  to  war,  "  the  moral 
majesty  of  war  through  the  very  processes  which 
to  the  superficial  observer  seem  brutal  and  inhuman. 

1  See  La  Reforme  Intellectual  et  Morale. 

2  John  Ruskin,  Crown  of  Wild  Olive.     Sec.  86. 


192   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

The  greatness  of  war  is  just  what  at  first  seems 
to  be  its  horror  —  that  for  the  sake  of  their  coun- 
try men  will  overcome  the  natural  feelings  of  hu- 
manity, that  they  will  slaughter  their  fellowmen 
who  have  done  them  no  injury,  nay,  whom  they  per- 
haps respect  as  chivalrous  foes.  Man  will  not  only 
sacrifice  his  life,  but  the  natural  and  justified  in- 
stincts of  the  soul;  here  we  have  the  sublimity  of 
war.  .  .  .  War  weaves  a  bond  of  love  between  man 
and  man.  ...  To  banish  war  from  the  world  would 
be  to  mutilate  human  nature.  .  .  .  War  is  the 
sphere  in  which  we  can  most  clearly  trace  the  tri- 
umph of  human  reason."  1  And  so  he  continues, 
paragraph  after  paragraph,  page  after  page,  deck- 
ing war  out  like  a  painted  lady.  "  The  hope  of 
banishing  war,"  he  says,  "  is  not  only  meaningless 
but  immoral.  Its  disappearance  would  turn  the 
earth  into  a  great  temple  of  selfishness." 

Or  listen  to  the  way  Nietzsche  proclaims  his  en- 
thusiasm. "  It  is,"  he  says,  "  mere  illusion  and 
pretty  sentiment  to  expect  much  (even  anything  at 
all)  from  mankind  if  it  forgets  how  to  make  war. 
As  yet  no  means  are  known  which  calls  so  much 
into  action  as  a  great  war,  that  rough  energy  born 
of  the  camp,  that  deep  impersonality  born  of  hatred, 

i  Politics,  Vol.  II,  pp.  395,  396,  599. 


MORAL  MAJESTY  OR  MADNESS?      193 

that  conscience  born  of  murder  and  cold-blooded- 
ness, that  fervour  born  of  effort  in  the  annihilation 
of  the  enemy,  that  proud  indifference  to  loss,  to 
one's  own  existence,  to  that  of  one's  fellows,  to  that 
earthquake-like  soulshaking  which  a  people  needs 
when  it  is  losing  its  virility." 

Now,  over  against  these  appreciations  of  war, 
read  this  account  of  what  was  done  by  Russian  guns 
and  winter  cold:  "At  night  under  the  glare  of 
the  searchlights,"  says  a  French  official  report,  "  the 
undulating  mass  of  wounded  made  efforts  to  ex- 
tricate themselves,  then  toward  two  o'clock  in  the 
morning  they  moved  no  more."  Did  Dore  ever 
paint  a  picture  of  war  more  gruesome  and  horrid 
—  and  with  fewer  strokes? 

Or  read  a  realistic  report  of  the  correspondent 
of  the  London  Daily  News,  in  which  he  describes 
how,  after  the  Russian  trenches  were  charged  by 
the  Germans,  corpses  lay  piled  in  wind-rows  until 
they  were  dismembered  and  thrown  into  the  faces 
of  the  Russian  soldiers  by  explosion  of  German 
bombs. 

Or  read  this  passage  from  John  Masefield's 
Gallipoli,  describing  a  charge  in  which  he  himself 
took  part.  With  others,  he  lies  along  a  rough 
three-mile  line,  facing  the  necessity  of  taking  a 


194  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

slope  one  thousand  feet  in  extent :  "  Let  him  im- 
agine himself  to  be  more  weary  than  he  has  ever 
been  in  his  whole  life  before,  and  dirtier  than  he 
has  ever  believed  it  possible  to  be,  and  parched  with 
thirst,  nervous,  wild-eyed,  and  rather  lousy.  Let 
him  think  that  he  has  not  slept  for  more  than  a 
few  minutes  together  for  eleven  days  and  nights, 
and  that  in  his  waking  hours  he  has  been  fighting 
for  his  life,  often  hand  to  hand  in  the  dark  with  a 
fierce  enemy,  and  that  after  each  fight  he  has  had 
to  dig  himself  a  hole  in  the  ground,  and  then 
walk  three  or  four  roadless  miles  to  bring  up 
heavy  boxes  under  fire.  Let  him  think,  too,  that 
in  all  those  eleven  days  he  has  never  been  for  an 
instant  out  of  the  thunder  of  cannon,  that,  waking 
or  sleeping,  their  devastating  crash  has  been  blast- 
ing the  air  within  a  mile  or  two,  and  this  from  an 
artillery  so  terrible  that  each  discharge  beats  as  it 
were  a  wedge  of  shock  between  the  skull-bone  and 
the  brain.  Let  him  think,  too,  that  never  for  an 
instant  in  all  that  time  has  he  been  free  from  the 
peril  of  death  in  its  most  sudden  and  savage  forms, 
and  that  hourly  he  has  seen  his  friends  blown  to 
pieces  at  his  side,  or  dismembered  or  drowned  or 
driven  mad  or  stabbed  or  sniped  or  bombed  in  the 
dark  sap,  with  a  handful  of  dynamite  in  a  beef -tin, 


MORAL  MAJESTY  OB  MADNESS?      195 

till  their  blood  is  caked  upon  his  clothes  and  thick 
upon  his  face,  and  that  he  knows,  as  he  stares  at 
that  hill  that  more  of  that  band  will  be  gone  the 
same  way,  and  that  he  himself  may  reckon  that  he 
has  done  with  life,  tasted  and  spoken  and  loved  his 
last,  and  that  in  a  few  minutes  more  may  be  blasted 
dead,  or  lying  bleeding  in  the  scrub,  with  perhaps 
his  face  gone  and  a  leg  or  an  arm  broken,  unable 
to  move,  but  still  alive,  unable  to  drive  away  the 
flies  or  screen  the  ever-dropping  rain."  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  the  song  of  Pippa  is  not  popular  to- 
day? 

Of  course,  if  it  be  glorious  to  tear  men  limb  from 
limb,  men  made  in  the  image  of  God,  why  then 
war  is  glorious.  The  fact  is,  the  glamour  of  ro- 
mance has  been  thrown  like  a  blanket  over  the 
corpse-strewn  fields  of  slaughter;  the  blare  of  the 
bugles  has  drowned  the  piercing  cries  of  pain;  the 
cant  religion  of  a  false  patriotism  has  hushed  the 
wails  of  women.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  loyal 
service  is  glorious,  that  generous  devotion  is  glori- 
ous, that  silent  suffering  is  glorious,  that  dauntless 
heroism  is  glorious.  One  would  need  to  be  very 
callous  and  very  stupid  to  deny  these  things.  But 
that  is  not  the  point.  These  things  are  but  the  tin- 
sel and  motley.  Stripped  of  its  splendid  robes  of 


196  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

purple  and  gold,  and  seen  only  in  the  drab  and 
grey  of  plain  fact,  war  ceases  to  be  so  thrilling  and 
inviting.  It  becomes  repulsive  and  obscene.  True, 
there  is  that  about  war  which  grips  the  imagination 
with  fingers  of  tempered  steel;  but,  before  we  ever 
again  give  ourselves  up  to  its  fascination  and  thrall 
let  us  at  least  clean  our  minds  of  cant  and  try  to 
see  things  steadily  and  see  them  whole. 

Mr.  William  James,  in  his  brilliant  and  much- 
quoted  essay  on  "  The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War," 
sums  up  the  attitude  of  the  militarist  enthusiast. 
"  Reflective  apologists  for  war  at  this  present  day," 
he  writes,  "  all  take  it  religiously.  It  is  a  sort  of 
sacrament.  Its  profits  are  to  the  vanquished  as 
well  as  to  the  victor;  and  quite  apart  from  any 
question  of  profit,  it  is  an  absolute  good,  we  are  told, 
for  it  is  human  nature  at  its  highest  dynamic.  Its 
'  horrors '  are  a  cheap  price  to  pay  for  rescue  from 
the  only  alternative  supposed,  of  a  world  of  clerks 
and  teachers,  of  co-education  and  zo-ophily,  of  '  con- 
sumer's leagues '  and  '  associated  charities/  of  in- 
dustrialism unlimited  and  feminism  unabashed. 
No  scorn,  no  hardness,  no  valour  anymore!  Fie 
upon  such  a  cattle  yard  of  a  planet ! "  l 

Now  when  the  contrast  is  put  in  just  that  way 
i  William  James,  Memories  and  Studies,  p.  276. 


MORAL  MAJESTY  OR  MADNESS?     197 

and  we  are  asked  to  choose  between  generous,  ar- 
dent, vivifying  war,  with  all  it  involves  in  the  way 
of  discipline  and  devoted  service,  and  sordid,  selfish, 
debilitating  peace,  few  could  be  found  who  would 
not  instantly  select  war  as  their  preference.  But 
the  line  is  never  so  clearly  drawn.  All  that  glisters 
is  not  gold,  and  there  is  a  lot  of  sentimentality  that 
has  found  its  way  into  the  literature  of  militarism. 
We  are  not  driven  to  choose  between  Yahveh  and 
Baal;  between  noble  war  and  ignominious  peace; 
between  enthusiastic  devotion  and  sordid  commer- 
cialism. The  virtues  are  not  all  with  one  and  the 
vices  with  the  other.  There  is  a  bad  side  to  war  as 
well  as  to  peace;  and  a  good  side  to  peace  as  well 
as  to  war.  Surely  it  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  many, 
if  not,  indeed,  most,  of  the  wars  of  history  have 
been  occasioned  by  pride  of  place,  ambition  for 
power,  dynastic  jealousy,  commercial  greed,  cruel 
revenge  and  blind  hatred.  And,  in  the  prosecution 
of  war,  the  flood-gates  have  been  lifted,  letting  loose 
a  torrent  of  falsehood,  hatred,  envy,  malice,  and 
lust  to  deluge  the  world.  On  the  other  hand, 
reluctant  as  some  military  writers  seem  to  be  to 
acknowledge  it,  there  is  in  piping  times  of  peace, 
much  business  that  is  enterprising  endeavour,  much 
commercialism  that  is  not  what  Homer  Lea  calls  "  a 


198  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

protoplasmic  gormandisation  and  retching,"  1  many- 
trees  that  thrive  besides  the  Upas  tree  of  greed. 

A  few  fervent  apologists  for  war  are  still  to  be 
found  here  and  there  and  now  and  then  who  con- 
tend that  it  has  many  patent  values.  They  say  that 
it  makes  men  and  nations  strong  and  noble  and 
brave.  Certain  writers  are  still  quoted  in  praise 
of  war  and  we  are  told  that  it  regenerates  corrupt 
peoples,  awakens  dormant  nations,  and  exercises 
a  happy  influence  upon  customs,  arts  and  science. 
A  frightful  picture  is  painted  of  the  rapid  decline 
and  fall  of  ancient  Rome  when  Sybaritic  peace 
sucked  her  strength  like  a  vampire,  though  precisely 
the  opposite  cause  for  the  fall  of  Rome  is  advanced 
by  the  great  historian  Mommsen. 

And  now  over  against  all  this  shall  we  see  what 
competent  critics  say  of  the  moral  damage  of  war. 
"  War  is  not,"  writes  Lecky,  "  and  never  can  be,  a 
mere  passionless  discharge  of  a  painful  duty.  Its 
essence,  and  a  main  condition  of  its  success,  is  to 
kindle  into  fierce  exercises  among  great  masses  of 
men  the  destructive  and  combative  passions  —  pas- 
sions as  fierce  and  as  malevolent  as  that  with  which 
the  hound  hunts  the  fox  to  its  death  or  the  tiger 
springs  upon  its  prey.  Destruction  is  one  of  its 

i  Homer  Lea,  The  Valor  of  Ignorance,  p.  27. 


MORAL  MAJESTY  OE  MADNESS?      199 

chief  ends.  Deception  is  one  of  its  chief  means; 
and  one  of  the  great  arts  of  skilful  generalship  is 
to  deceive  in  order  to  destroy.  Whatever  other 
elements  may  mingle  with  and  dignify  war,  this  at 
least  is  never  absent ;  and  however  reluctantly  men 
may  enter  into  war,  however  conscientiously  they 
may  endeavour  to  avoid  it,  they  must  know  that 
when  the  scene  of  carnage  has  once  opened,  these 
things  must  be  not  only  accepted  and  condoned,  but 
stimulated,  encouraged  and  applauded."  1 

"  War,"  writes  Walter  Walsh,  "  is  the  sum  of  all 
villainies  and  includes  a  corruption  of  moral  sense 
that  is  the  greatest  of  all  its  villainies.  War  kills, 
but  the  murderous  spirit  it  creates  is  crueler  than 
any  particular  act  of  murder.  War  lies;  but  the 
lying  spirit  it  engenders  is  baser  than  any  specific 
falsehood.  War  steals ;  but  the  pirate  spirit  it  fos- 
ters is  meaner  than  any  single  theft.  War  lusts; 
but  the  general  debauchment  of  virtue  is  fouler  than 
any  one  rape  or  violation.  The  glory  of  war  is  one 
thing;  let  it  be  put  into  the  scale,  and  let  the  gain 
of  war  be  put  in  with  it.  Then  into  the  opposite 
scale  let  the  moral  damage  of  war  be  cast.  Let 
the  balance  be  true.  Its  destructive  effect  upon  the 

i  Quoted  from  W.  E.  H.  Lecky's  The  Map  of  Life,  in  D.  W. 
Lyon's  The  Christian  Equivalent  of  War. 


200  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

moral  character  of  the  nation  that  wages  it  is  war's 
final  condemnation."  l 

And  yet  the  disciplinary  value  of  war  is  too  real 
to  be  sarcastically  set  aside.  It  is  perfectly  true 
that  long  and  arduous  campaigns  do  make  for 
virility  and  do  train  men  to  endure  hardness;  but 
so  does  daily  labour  and  the  struggle  for  bread.  On 
the  other  hand  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  indolent 
life  of  the  barracks  is  physically  softening  in  times 
of  calm,  while  camp  life  in  times  of  war  is  very 
likely  to  prove  not  only  physically  debilitating  but 
also  morally  degenerating  and  spiritually  brutalis- 
ing.  In  other  words,  the  ledger  has  a  debit  side 
as  well  as  a  credit  side. 

In  war,  it  is  said,  the  chaff  is  winnowed  from  the 
wheat,2  and  that  is  true.  But,  unfortunately  for 
the  race  it  is  the  wheat  that  is  destroyed  and  it  is 
the  chaff  that  is  preserved.  The  value  of  struggle 
between  nations  as  an  eliminator  of  the  weak  and 
unfit  has  been  immensely  overstated.  Even  if  it 
could  be  proved  beyond  dispute  that  evolution  is 
a  force  as  well  as  a  fact,  that  it  is  more  than  a  mere 
description  of  what  happens  in  the  way  of  change 
and  modification  through  the  long  generations  of 

1  Walter  Walsh,  The  Mnrnl  Damage  of  War,  p.  43. 

2  Treitschke,  Politics,  Vol.  I,  p.  67. 


MORAL  MAJESTY  OB  MADNESS?      201 

man's  life  on  earth,  it  would  prove  absolutely  noth- 
ing as  to  latter-day  struggles  between  civilised 
states,  in  which  the  flower  of  the  nations  is  pur- 
posely picked  and  selected  for  extinction.  The 
lame,  the  halt  and  the  blind;  the  weak,  the  dis- 
eased, the  cowardly  and  the  selfish ;  —  these  are  left 
to  propagate  the  future. 

Novicov  wrote,  more  than  a  score  of  years  ago, 
that  war  "has  invariably  eliminated  individuals 
physiologically  the  most  perfect,  and  has  allowed 
the  weakest  to  survive.  .  .  .  Since  the  most  ancient 
times  men  of  the  soundest  constitutions,  the  most 
vigorous  men  have  gone  off  to  fight.  The  weak,  the 
sick,  the  deformed  have  remained  at  home.  So, 
every  battle  carries  away  some  of  the  elect,  leaving 
behind  the  socially  unproductive."  1 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  war  masters  are  very 
finicky  in  their  selection  of  human  material.  Mars, 
like  the  God  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  insists  that 
only  the  unblemished  of  the  flock  shall  be  led  to  the 
sacrificial  altar.  No  nation  that  cares  about  its 
future,  as  well  as  its  present,  can  afford  to  destroy 
the  pick  of  its  citizenry  and  leave  only  the  feeble 
and  defective,  the  subnormal  and  the  abnormal,  to 
pollute  the  stream  of  its  social  life.2 

1  War  and  Its  Alleged  Benefits,  p.  21. 

2  Henri  Lambert  suggests  an  international  agreement  to  em- 


202  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

In  reply  to  Bernhardi's  statement  that  "  War  is 
a  biological  necessity  of  the  first  importance,  a 
regulative  element  in  the  life  of  mankind  which 
cannot  be  dispensed  with,  since  without  it  an  un- 
healthy development  will  follow,  which  excludes 
every  advancement  of  the  race  and  therefore  all  real 
civilisation,"  l  Herbert  Spencer  may  be  quoted.  In 
his  Study  of  Sociology  he  says :  "  Though  during 
the  earlier  stages  of  civilisation  war  has  the  effect  of 
exterminating  the  weaker  societies  and  of  weeding 
out  the  weaker  members  of  the  stronger  societies, 
during  the  later  stages  of  civilisation,  the  second  of 
these  actions  is  reversed.  .  .  .  After  this  stage  has 
been  reached  the  purifying  process,  continuing  still 
an  important  one,  remains  to  be  carried  on  by  in- 
dustrial war  —  by  a  competition  of  societies  dur- 
ing which  the  best,  physically,  emotionally,  and  in- 
tellectually spread  most  and  leave  the  least  capa- 
ble to  disappear  gradually,  from  failing  to  leave  a 
sufficiently  numerous  posterity." 

Contemporary  scientists  of  commanding  reputa- 
tion have  recently  repudiated  as  absurd  the  notion 

ploy  as  combatants  only  those  men  who  are  over  forty-five  years 
of  age.  This,  he  says,  would  be  a  double  benefit,  inasmuch  as 
most  of  the  useful  and  stronger  men  would  be  spared,  and  most 
of  the  unuseful  and  detrimental  would  be  periodically  swept 
away.  It  is  nearly  certain,  he  adds,  that  with  such  a  law 
operating  there  would  be  no  more  war. 

i  Germany  and  the  Xext  War,  Ch.  I,  p.  18. 


MORAL  MAJESTY  OR  MADNESS?      203 

that  war  is  either  a  biological  necessity,  or  the 
method  of  nature  making  for  advance.  In  a  paper 
on  "  Biology  and  War "  read  before  the  Annual 
Assemblage  of  the  American  Association  for  the 
Advancement  of  Science,1  Jacques  Loeb,  head  of  the 
department  of  experimental  biology  in  the  Rocke- 
feller Institute  for  Medical  Research,  said: 
"  These  war  enthusiasts  maintain  that  unless  a  na- 
tion engages  occasionally  in  war  it  will  lose  all 
those  virile  virtues,  especially  courage,  which  are 
necessary  for  its  survival.  We  do  not  need  to  argue 
whether  the  acts  committed  in  a  state  of  homicidal 
emotion  are  the  real  or  only  manifestations  of  cour- 
age ;  we  may  also  overlook  the  manifestations  of 
virility  left  behind  by  invading  or  retreating  armies. 
The  assumption  that  virility  or  courage  (whatever 
may  be  meant  by  these  terms)  will  disappear  if 
not  practised  in  the  form  of  war  implies  an  un- 
proven  and  apparently  false  biological  assumption 
—  namely,  that  functions  not  practised  or  organs 
not  used  will  disappear  in  the  offspring.  The  state- 
ment that  a  nation  by  not  going  to  war  will  lose 
any  of  its  inherited  virile  virtues  is  not  supported 
by  our  present  biological  knowledge.  The  <  strug- 

i  December  29,   1916,  American  Societies  of  Zoologists  and 
Naturalists. 


204     A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

gle  for  existence '  and  the  '  survival  of  the  fittest ' 
are  no  laws  of  nature  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
term  law  is  used  in  the  exact  sciences." 

Dr.  G.  Stanley  Hall,  the  eminent  psychologist, 
prepared  a  paper  on  "  Psychology  and  War  "  which 
was  read  before  the  twenty-fifth  anniversary  meet- 
ing of  the  American  Psychological  Association  as 
part  of  the  Annual  Assemblage  of  the  American 
Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science  on  De- 
cember 28,  1916.  The  whole  paper  ought  to  be 
carefully  studied  by  all  who  are  interested  in  the 
problem  of  peace  and  war.  One  of  the  most  strik- 
ing paragraphs  is  the  following :  "  We  shall  surely 
have  a  new  and  larger  psychology  of  war.  The 
older  literature  on  it  is  already  more  or  less 
obsolete  from  almost  every  point  of  view,  and 
James'  theory  of  a  moral  and  Cannon's  of  a  physi- 
ological, equivalent  of  war  seem  now  pallid  and 
academic.  More  in  point  are  the  reversionary  con- 
ceptions of  Freud,  Pfister  and  Patrick,  that  it  is 
more  or  less  normal  for  man  at  times  to  plunge 
back  and  down  the  evolutionary  ladder,  and  to  im- 
merse himself  in  rank  primitive  emotions  and  to 
break  away  from  the  complex  conventions  and  rou- 
tine of  civilised  life  and  revert  to  that  of  the 
troglodytes  in  the  trenches  and  to  face  the  chance 


MOEAL  MAJESTY  OE  MADNESS?     205 

of  instant  death  when  the  struggle  for  survival  is 
at  its  maximum  in  the  bayonet  charge." 

However  it  may  have  been  in  the  past  it  cer- 
tainly is  not  true  to-day  that  a  nation  is  made  strong 
by  killing  off  the  puny  and  unfit.  It  has  been 
brought  out  by  painstaking  historical  and  scientific 
inquiry  that  exactly  the  opposite  is  what  actually 
happens.  So  far  from  modern  war  being  eugenic 
it  is  cacogenic.1  There  is  little  force  and  less 
cogency  in  the  familiar  argument  that  war  is  neces- 
sary because  of  some  immutable  law  of  nature  which 
says  that  all  advance  is  through  struggle  and  that 
nations  must  meekly  submit  without  protest  to  the 
operation  of  this  natural  law.  If  it  were  not  so 
terribly  tragic,  it  would  be  absurdly  comic.  Dip- 
lomats who  make  wars  must  laugh  up  their  sleeves 
at  all  this  profound  foolery. 

But  say  what  one  will,  war  certainly  quickens  the 
pulse  and  arouses  the  emotions.  Its  romance  fires 
the  imagination  and  lives,  hard-caked  with  custom, 
are  startled  into  new  ways  of  feeling  and  thinking. 
Dormant  faculties  are  quickened  into  new  life.  The 

i  This  was  pointed  out  by  Herbert  Spencer  as  early  as  1873 ;  by 
Jacque  Novicov  in  1894 ;  by  David  Starr  Jordan  in  1907,  and  by 
George  Nasmyth  in  1916.  See  also  Theodore  Mommsen's  His- 
tory of  Rome;  David  Starr  Jordan's  The  Human  Harvest,  The 
Blood  of  the  Nation,  War  and  the  Breed,  and  The  Aftermath; 
C.  W.  Saleeby's  The  Longest  Cost  of  War,  and  Novicov's  La 
Guerre  et  ses  Pretendres  Beneflets. 


206  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

excitement  of  war  taps  the  latent  moral  energies  of 
men.  Slumbering  impulses  towards  generous  ac- 
tion are  awakened  by  the  clarion  call  of  war's 
alarums.  But  —  and  this  is  important  —  vicari- 
ous suffering  is  too  precious  to  be  prodigally  and 
needlessly  wasted.  "  The  blood  of  man,"  said 
Burke,  "  should  never  be  shed  but  to  redeem  the 
blood  of  man.  It  is  well  shed  for  our  family,  for 
our  country,  for  our  kind.  The  rest  is  vanity ;  the 
rest  is  crime."  It  has  been  demonstrated  again  and 
again  in  the  course  of  this  present  war  that  however 
base  and  sordid  men  may  seem  to  be  in  the  ordinary 
round  of  their  everyday  lives,  they  will  almost  inva- 
riably respond  to  a  dramatic  call  for  high  idealism. 
And  war  does  make  a  tremendous  appeal  to  the  best 
as  well  as  to  the  worst  in  a  man.  But,  unhappily, 
noble  self-sacrifice  on  the  part  of  lords  and  drain- 
men,  inspired  by  the  most  generous  emotions  of 
loyal  and  kindly  service,  can  be  paralleled  by 
equally  authentic  cases  of  selfish  greed  and  brutal 
atrocity.  All  of  which  would  seem  to  prove  that 
what  war  does  is  to  act  as  a  powerful  magnet  to 
draw  forth  the  latent  nobility  (or  treachery,  or 
cruelty)  resident  in  the  human  heart. 

Something  like  this  must  have  been  what  Profes- 
sor James  had  in  mind  when  he  wrote,  in  August, 


MOKAL  MAJESTY  OR  MADNESS?      207 

1910,  the  essay  already  quoted,  "  The  Moral 
Equivalent  of  War."  1  The  idea  there  set  forth  had 
been  clearly  anticipated  fifteen  years  bofore  by 
Charles  Ferguson  in  his  pamphlet  on  "The  Eco- 
nomics of  Devotion." 2  The  essence  of  the  idea 
seems  to  be  that  militarism  is  the  great  preserver 
of  our  ideals  of  hardihood,  and  that  human  life 
with  no  use  for  hardihood  would  be  contemptible. 
James  says  that  the  war  party  is  assuredly  right 
in  affirming  and  reaffirming  that  the  martial  vir- 
tues, although  originally  gained  by  the  race  through 
war,  are  absolute  and  permanent  human  goods. 
He  adds  that  "  without  risks  or  prizes  for  the 
darer,  history  would  be  insipid  indeed;  and  there 
is  a  type  of  military  character  which  every  one  feels 
that  the  race  should  never  cease  to  breed,  for  every 
one  is  sensitive  to  its  superiority."  3  The  world 
can  ill  afford  to  lose  these  qualities  and  characteris- 
tics. The  new-born  hope  is  that  we  may  be  able 
to  switch  this  belt  of  moral  power  from  the  de- 
structive machinery  of  war  to  the  productive  ma- 
chinery of  art  and  industry  and  civilisation. 
Nor  does  war  make  men  brave.  War  has  no 

i "  The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War  "  was  written  for  and  pub- 
lished by  the  American  Association  for  International  Concilia- 
tion in  1910. 

2  Published  in  1895. 

s  Memories  and  Studies,  pp.  277,  288. 


208  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFOKCE  PEACE 

more  power  to  make  heroes  than  industry  has  power 
to  manufacture  saints.  Clearly,  what  war  does  is 
to  bring  out  the  potential  courage  (or  cowardice)  of 
men.  It  reveals  men  for  what  they  are,  as  the 
lightning  reveals  the  stout  heart  of  the  oak  —  or 
its  rotten  core.  War,  just  because  of  its  irresistible 
appeal  to  the  imaginations  of  men,  helps  us  to 
"  become  what  we  are."  *•  Deeds  of  courage  and 
heroism  are  particular  types  of  idealistic  action, 
and  it  is  with  them  as  it  is  with  the  other  forms 
of  idealism  referred  to  in  the  previous  section - 
they  are  stimulated  by  the  excitement  of  war. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  is  in  war  an 
extraordinary  power  of  exaltation  that  calls  forth 
the  finest  faculties  of  the  soul.  But  that  is  not  un- 
usual. Danger  always  does  this  in  the  common 
walks  of  ordinary  life.  All  that  is  wanted  is  the 
stimulus  of  imperative  demand.  When  the  Titanic 
went  down  off  the  coast  of  Newfoundland  heroism 
was  so  universal  as  to  be  almost  commonplace. 
When  San  Francisco  lay  torn  and  bruised  and 
bleeding,  everybody  wore  the  red  badge  of  courage. 

But  even  if  it  were  true  that  war  stimulated  only 
the  virtues  of  valour,  inspired  no  emotions  less  noble 
than  generous  heroism,  that  would  not  be  a  suffi- 

i  Pindar. 


MORAL  MAJESTY  OR  MADNESS?      209 

cient  reason  for  perpetuating  it  as  a  desirable  in- 
stitution. Poverty  sometimes  acts  upon  the  human 
spirit  in  much  the  same  way.  So  also  does  disease 
and  every  form  of  suffering.  We  do  not  therefore 
argue  that  misery,  injustice,  disease  and  distress 
should  be  permanently  endowed  because  the  mar- 
tyrs of  maladjustment  sometimes  become  devout 
saints.  When  a  stimulant  turns  out  to  be  a  dele- 
terious intoxicant  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  find 
some  substitute  less  harmful. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
EARTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES? 

THE  second  article  in  the  creed  of  militarism  says 
that  War  is  Inevitable;  in  a  word,  Fatalism.  And 
why?  Because,  forsooth,  civilisation  is  only  skin- 
deep  and  progress  is  an  illusion.  "  Man,"  writes 
Major-General  J.  P.  Story,1  "  in  his  evolution  from 
primitive  savagery  has  followed  laws  as  immutable 
as  the  law  of  gravitation.  ...  A  few  idealists  may 
have  visions  that,  with  advancing  civilisation,  war 
and  its  dreadful  horrors  will  cease.  Civilisation 
has  not  changed  human  nature.  The  nature  of  man 
makes  war  inevitable.  Armed  strife  will  not  dis- 
appear from  the  earth  until  after  human  nature 
changes." 

But  is  the  notion  of  progress  a  great  illusion,  a 
vital  lie?  Is  the  world  getting  worse  instead  of 
better?  2  Can  we  move  only  in  circles  and  cycles? 
Must  history  forever  repeat  itself?  Is  hope  but  the 
mother  of  regret  and  faith  the  child  of  folly?  Is 
the  progress  of  the  nations  only  as  a  lizard  that 

1  In  an  Introduction  to  Homer  Lea's  Valor  of  Ignorance. 

2  Edward  Alsworth  Ross,  Latter  Day  Saints  and  Sinners. 

210 


EARTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES?      211 

scales  the  wall  to  find  a  place  in  the  sun  and  then 
slip  back  again?  Is  the  advance  of  the  race  but 
as  the  advance  of  the  waves  of  the  sea,  that  soon 
recede  only  to  leave  behind  them  the  wetted  sands 
of  our  disappointment?  Is  the  rise  of  mankind  like 
the  rise  of  the  tides  of  the  ocean  to  full  flood,  only 
to  be  followed  again  by  ebb-tide?  When  we  think 
we  are  getting  ahead  are  we  merely  going  round 
and  round  with  endless  political,  social,  and  indus- 
trial revolutions  till  dizzy  with  despair?  Is  it  not 
more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  when  we  go  round 
we  also  ascend  as  one  who  climbs  a  circular  stair- 
case? Is  not  the  escalator  a  fitting  symbol  of 
social  progress?  Or,  in  believing  this,  are  we  but 
hardened  optimists,  incorrigible  idealists?  For  we 
must  not  forget  that  there  is  a  "  well-nigh  universal 
persuasion  that  Progress  accomplishes  itself,  that 
a  benignant  Fate  drags  the  nations  forward  in  an 
ascending  scale,  by  the  mere  irresistible  drift  of 
elemental  and  evolutionary  forces  —  without  need 
of  any  intervention  of  human  virtue  or  human 
will."  *  But  this  common  notion  that  evolution 
means  social  advance  and  that  there  is  some  law 
of  nature  that  insures  progress,  quite  irrespective 
of  education  or  selection,  is  wholly  without  war- 
3-  Charles  Ferguson. 


212  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

rant.  Leponge  tells  us  that  such  a  forward  and 
upward  movement  "  exists  in  rhetoric,  not  in  truth 
nor  in  history."  l 

As  we  "  look  o'er  the  ravage  of  the  reeking  plain  " 
from  the  verge  of  the  Great  Divide,  we  are  bound  to 
ask  ourselves  whether  war  is  inevitable.  The  an- 
swer is,  yes  and  no.  When  a  keystone  is  kicked 
loose  on  a  mountain  side  then  the  avalanche  be- 
comes "inevitable,"  but  we  should  be  more  care- 
ful. An  earthquake  is  "  inevitable  "  in  a  radically 
different  sense  of  the  word  for  there  is  nothing 
that  man  can  do  to  forfend  its  coming.  War  is  an 
avalanche  and  not  an  earthquake. 

It  is  frequently  announced  with  an  air  of  finality, 
as  a  sort  of  controversial  ultimatum,  that  war  is 
like  birth  and  death,  like  growth  and  decay,  like  the 
changing  seasons  and  the  law  of  gravity.  People 
who  believe  that  the  peace  of  the  world  is  not  an  un- 
tenable ideal  are  accused  of  folly  in  attempting  to 
command  Destiny,  as  if  they  were  to  stand  like 
traffic  policemen  amid  the  interstellar  spaces  and 
blow  their  whistles  for  the  planets  to  stop.  It 
would  seem  that  all  who  argue  in  this  fashion  ought 
to  fall  in  love  with  the  Triple  Fates. 

i  Quoted  by  David  Starr  Jordan  in  The  Blood  of  the  Nation, 
p.  31. 


EAKTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES?  213 

But  is  the  idea  that  we  should  gradually  move 
away  from  the  ancient  custom  of  war  and  towards 
an  era  of  universal  peace  as  visionary  as  some 
would  have  us  believe?  Surely  it  would  be  sheer 
stupidity  to  deny  that  progress  has  been  made  up- 
ward and  away  from  long  hours  of  labour  in  un- 
sanitary conditions  of  employment,  from  the  brutal 
treatment  of  the  insane,  from  the  burning  of  so- 
called  witches,1  and  from  cruel  religious  persecu- 
tions. By  this  token,  may  we  not  reasonably  look 
forward  to  the  time  when  man's  inhumanity  to 
man,  in  the  form  of  dreadful  wars,  shall  no  longer 
make  countless  thousands  mourn?  Is  there  no  jus- 
tification for  our  faith  that  all  people,  everywhere, 

i  A  book  was  published  in  1682  entitled  A  Tryal  of  Witches  at 
the  Assizes,  held  at  Bury  St.  Edmonds,  for  the  County  of  Suf- 
folk, on  the  tenth  day  of  March,  1664,  before  Sir  Matthew  Hale, 
K.  T.,  then  Lord  Chief  Baron  of  His  Majesties  Court  of  Ex- 
chequer," which  contains  a  record  of  instructions  given  to 
Jurors,  that  reads  as  follows : 

"That  there  were  such  creatures  as  witches  he  (Lord  Hale) 
made  no  doubt  at  all ;  for  first,  the  Scriptures  had  affirmed  so 
much.  Secondly,  the  wisdom  of  all  nations  had  provided  laws 
against  such  persons,  which  is  an  argument  of  their  confidence 
of  such  a  crime.  And  such  hath  been  the  judgment  of  this 
kingdom  as  appears  by  that  act  of  Parliament  which  had  pro- 
vided punishments  proportionable  to  the  quality  of  the  offence. 
And  desired  them  strictly  to  observe  their  evidence ;  and  desired 
the  great  God  of  Heaven  to  direct  their  hearts  in  this  weighty 
matter  they  had  in  hand ;  for  to  condemn  the  innocent,  and  to  let 
the  guilty  go  free,  were  both  an  abomination  to  the  Lord.  In 
conclusion,  the  Judges,  and  all  the  court  were  fully  satisfied 
with  the  verdict  and  thereupon  gave  judgment  against  the  thir- 
teen witches  that  they  should  be  hanged.  And  they  were  ex- 
ecuted on  Monday,  the  17th  of  March  following,  but  they  con- 
fessed nothing." 


214  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

will  soon  look  upon  war  as  a  hideous  anachronism, 
out  of  place  in  the  modern  world?  "  This  too  shall 
pass  away." 

It  must  constantly  be  kept  in  mind,  as  has  al- 
ready been  pointed  out,  that  there  are  fashions 
in  morals.  The  pages  of  history  bulge  with  illus- 
trations of  this  fact.  The  time  was,  for  example, 
when  cannibalism  seems  to  have  been  all  the  vogue. 
It  had  plenty  of  apologists  and  very  few,  if  any,  who 
troubled  their  heads  or  hearts  about  whether  it 
was  right  or  wrong,  wise  or  foolish.  From  the 
scant  information  available  we  gather  that  our  re- 
mote ancestors  took  it  for  granted  without  either 
personal  or  social  qualms  of  conscience.  If  there 
were  any  societies  for  the  abolition  of  cannibalism, 
any  leagues  to  enforce  vegetarianism,  history  says 
nothing  about  them.  No  propaganda  literature  has 
come  down  to  us.  For  long  ages  men  apparently 
found  nothing  repulsive  in  the  hideous  practice  and 
then  suddenly,  or  gradually,  nobody  really  knows, 
there  came  a  change  in  the  people's  thinking  and 
feeling  on  the  subject.  Human  nature  refused  any 
longer  to  tolerate  this  disgusting  relic  of  a  bar- 
barous age.  The  decayed  custom  was  thrown  in 
the  fires  of  Gehenna  for  the  sanitation  of  society. 

Take  another  example.     When  Trajan  was  Em- 


EARTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES?      215 

peror  many  of  the  most  respectable  Romans  found 
recreation  and  amusement  in  gladiatorial  combats. 
Apparently  with  no  shame  and  with  keen  enthusi- 
asm, ladies  of  fashion  and  not  a  few  statesmen  and 
philosophers  sat  in  the  galleries  around  the  amphi- 
theatre and  cheered  the  contestants.  When  the 
conqueror  had  worsted  his  opponent  he  placed  his 
foot  upon  the  unfortunate  victim  and  turned  to 
the  spectators  for  their  approving  applause.  If 
thumbs  were  turned  down  that  meant,  as  every- 
body knows,  it  was  the  wish  of  the  onlookers  to  see 
the  vanquished  murdered  before  their  eyes.  For  a 
long  time  human  nature  stood  for  that  sort  of 
thing  with  very  little  protest.  To-day,  mankind 
does  not  get  its  relaxation  in  that  kind  of  bloody 
show.  It  may  be  argued  that  we  still  have  lynch- 
ings  and  that  there  are  thousands  who  revel  in  the 
morbid  excitement  of  that  sort  of  horrid  melo- 
drama.1 That  is  true,  but  is  it  not  in  the  nature 
of  a  moral  throwback,  a  kind  of  spiritual  atavism? 
And  is  it  not  met  with  the  reprobation  of  all  decent 

i  In  its  annual  review  the  Chicago  Tribune  points  out  that 
between  1882  and  1903  there  were  3,337  lynchiugs  in  forty-four 
of  our  States.  The  only  other  place  in  the  world,  it  is  said, 
where  lynching  exists,  is  in  certain  sections  of  rural  Russia 
where  there  are  inadequate  penalties  for  horse  stealing. 
Lynching,  we  are  told,  exists  nowhere  under  the  British, 
French,  Dutch  or  German  flags,  although  they  all  cover  frontier 
conditions  and  mixed  races. 


216  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

people?  Or,  again,  we  will  be  reminded  of  the 
modern  analogue  to  the  ancient  gladiatorial  games 
—  bullfights  in  Spanish  and  Latin-American  coun- 
tries. It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection 
that  in  October,  1916,  the  Mexican  de-facto  Govern- 
ment placed  its  final  ban  on  that  pastime.  Has 
human  nature  changed?  We  do  not  know.  But, 
measured  by  this  yard-stick,  certainly  something 
has  happened  to  human  nature,  call  it  what  you 
will. 

Take  still  another  example,  for  history  is  replete 
with  illustrations  of  the  principle.  A  century  ago 
in  England  pauper  children  of  tender  years,  sent 
from  London  workhouses,  were  forced  to  labour 
fourteen  and  fifteen  and  even  sixteen  hours  a  day  1 
in  mills  and  shops,  while  in  the  coal  mines  they 
were  often  harnessed  like  beasts  of  burden.2  Little 
children,  who  ought  to  have  been  in  God's  great 
out-of-doors,  wading  knee-deep  in  June,  were  the  un- 
willing prisoners  of  their  unhappy  fortunes.  They 
were  treated  as  slaves,  frequently  worked  to  death, 
and,  it  was  said,  even  murdered,  that  fresh  chil- 
dren and  new  premiums  might  be  obtained.3  With 

1  Report  of  Royal  Commission  of  1833. 

2  Report  of  Royal  Commission  of  1841. 

a  See  article  on  "Child  Labour"  and  "Child  Labour  and 
Legislation  in  Great  Britain,"  in  Bliss'  Encyclopedia  of  Social 
Reform. 


EARTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES?      217 

but  few  splendid  exceptions  human  nature  seems 
not  to  have  been  especially  revolted  by  this  shame- 
ful spectacle.  The  children  were  stunted  and 
broken  by  premature  and  exacting  toil  and  yet  this 
crime  against  civilisation  went  on  from  decade  to 
decade  with  scarcely  an  audible  protest.  And  then, 
one  day,  Michael  Sadler  stood  up  in  his  place  in 
the  English  House  of  Parliament  l  and  startled  his 
dignified  compeers  by  whirling  a  scorpion  whip 
about  his  head.  He  explained  that  it  was  one  of 
the  whips  used  to  drive  listless  and  weary  children 
to  their  arduous  labour.  When  hands  and  feet 
were  too  tired  for  further  toil,  then  a  red  welt 
across  the  children's  backs  would  help  to  start  their 
flagging  energies.  Then  something  happened  and 
in  1843  Elizabeth  Barrett  Browning  wrote  her  chal- 
lenging poem,  "  The  Cry  of  the  Children,"  and  the 
movement  towards  the  abolition  of  child  labour 
went  rapidly  forward  in  England,  America  and 
other  lands.  Society  refused  any  longer  to  accept 
without  protest  the  superstitious  sacrifice  of  chil- 
dren in  the  Ganges  of  Greed.  Now  a  federal  statute 
has  been  enacted  by  the  United  States  Congress  and 
signed  by  President  Wilson  (September  1,  1916) 

i  See  Hutchins  and  Harrison's  History  of  Factory  Legisla- 
tion. 


218  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

which  at  least  stamps  the  stigma  of  social  disap- 
proval upon  the  baleful  custom.  The  law  of  the 
land  to-day  forbids  interstate  or  foreign  commerce 
in  goods  that  are  made  in  mines  which  employ  chil- 
dren under  the  age  of  sixteen,  or  in  factories  which 
employ  children  under  the  age  of  fourteen.  This 
directly  affects  150,000  children  and  is  but  the 
preface  to  the  volume  of  reform  which  must  fol- 
low to  free  the  other  1,850,000  from  the  bondage 
of  premature  toil. 

One  more  instance,  and  then  we  shall  have  to  let 
that  suffice  for  want  of  space.  Chattel  slavery,  in 
one  form  or  another,  was  for  ages  accepted  as  part 
and  parcel  of  the  normal  order  of  things.  It  was 
countenanced  and  justified  not  only  by  the  logic 
of  precedent,  but  by  the  authority  of  valid  law  and 
revealed  religion.  There  have  always  been  bond 
and  free,  slaves  and  masters.  Reformers  who  pro- 
tested against  the  arrangement  as  unjust  and  un- 
necessary were  patronised  as  harmless  lunatics  or 
impossible  visionaries.  They  were  reminded  that 
"  slavery  always  had  been  and  therefore  always 
would  be."  But  the  apologists  for  human  slavery 
did  not  content  themselves  with  the  argument  that 
it  was  natural  and  normal.  They  cited  the  fact 
that  Saint  Paul  admonished  the  slave  Onesemus  to 


EAKTHQUAKES  OE  AVALANCHES?  219 

return  to  his  master  Philemon.  They  revived  the 
story  of  Canaan,  the  son  of  Ham.1  Some  said 
that  human  slavery  was  sanctioned  and  ordained  by 
high  heaven  and  had  the  approval  of  God  himself. 
The  blame  for  it,  if  any  one  was  to  be  held  culp- 
able, was  placed  upon  the  broad  shoulders  of  the 
Almighty.  It  was  explained  that  the  Maker  had 
purposely  designed  and  created  some  men  to  be 
beasts  of  burden  to  carry  the  rest  of  us  on  their 
backs.  Abolitionists  were  urged  not  to  debate  with 
Destiny.  They  were  exhorted  to  repent  of  their 
folly  and  fall  down  and  worship  the-  God  of  Things 
as  They  Are.  They  were  cautioned  not  to  fly  in 
the  face  of  the  immutable  laws  of  life.  How  very 
like  the  writings  of  Treitschke  and  Bernhardi  all 
this  sounds  to-day!  And  yet,  withal,  chattel  slav- 
ery has  been  altogether  abolished.  Is  it  so  unrea- 
sonable to  believe  that  some  day  the  same  thing 
will  happen  as  to  war?  One  might  multiply  ex- 
amples 2  almost  without  number,  not  forgetting  that 
what  was  called  child-exposure  in  the  days  of  "  the 

i "  Cursed  be  Canaan ;  a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  unto 
his  brethern." —  Genesis  9 :  25. 

2  Montesquieu  reminds  us  that  Gelon,  the  King  of  Syracuse, 
in  "  the  noblest  treaty  of  peace  ever  mentioned  in  history,"  in- 
sisted upon  the  conquered  Carthaginians  abolishing  the  custom 
of  sacrificing  their  children. 

The  Bactrians  exposed  their  aged  fathers  to  be  devoured  by 
large  mastiffs  —  a  custom  which,  we  are  told  by  Strobo,  was 
suppressed  by  Alexander. 


220  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

glory  that  was  Greece  —  the  grandeur  that  was 
Rome/'  is  now  called  infanticide ;  or  that  the  neck- 
lace, bracelet  and  ring,  now  worn  by  women,  are 
but  the  insignia  of  their  erstwhile  servitude. 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  maintained  that  these 
customs  are,  after  all,  man-made  and  hence  may 
be  modified  or  abolished  by  men,  but  that  with 
war  the  case  is  different.  It  will  be  said,  indeed 
it  is  frequently  said,  that  war  grows  out  of  the 
natural  character  of  man.  A  tree  is  known  by  its 
fruit  and  the  fruit  is  determined  by  the  tree.  One 
does  not  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of  thistles.1 
Man,  it  is  claimed,  is  by  nature  and  ancestral  dis- 
position pugnacious.  Because  of  his  inherent  love 
for  combat  he  would  die  of  ennui  if  he  were  to  be 
deprived  of  an  occasional  opportunity  to  fight.  No 
argument  for  war  is  more  familiar  than  that  human 
nature  is  essentially  brutal  and  human  nature 
never  changes.  This  is  sometimes  called  the  psy- 
chological argument  for  war,  or  more  strictly  speak- 
ing, against  peace.  But  is  it  not  rather  preten- 
tious to  settle  off-hand,  or  nonchalantly  to  brush 
aside,  the  most  profound  problems  of  moral  philoso- 
phy? It  is  far  from  settled  that  human  nature  is 
essentially  brutal,  lustful  and  predaceous.  Nor 

i  Matthew  7 : 16. 


EARTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES?     221 

can  it  be  settled  by  the  mere  say-so  of  scientist  or 
theologian,  much  less  by  the  polemics  of  popular 
writers  on  military  subjects. 

Dogmatising  about  the  nature  of  man  is  beat- 
ing the  air.  There  seems  to  be  something  of  the 
beast  and  something  of  the  angel  in  all  of  us. 
Man's  body  probably  came  to  him  from  and  through 
the  lower  animals,  but  his  soul  is  the  breath  of  the 
living  God.  To  assert  that  human  nature  is  brutal 
is  more  than  likely  a  libel.  To  proclaim  that  man 
naturally  thirsts  for  blood  and  lusts  for  combat  is 
to  preach  a  dubious  doctrine  of  pessimism.  As  well 
insist  that  because  of  perverted  instincts  we  must 
always  have  glaring  red-light  districts  in  every  city. 
It  cannot  be  proved.  It  would  be  quite  as  reason- 
able to  argue  that  the  nature  of  fire  is  to  transform 
the  Museum  of  Alexandria  into  a  heap  of  ashes,  or 
to  make  torches  of  Christians  to  light  the  gardens 
of  a  Roman  Emperor.  Of  course,  uncontrolled 
fire  will  devastate  and  destroy,  and  so  will  uncon- 
trolled human  nature.  In  fact  it  is  something  like 
this  that  is  happening  in  Europe  to-day.  The 
sparks  have  caught  and  the  flames  have  spread  like 
a  forest  fire.  But  what  fire  or  human  nature  will 
do  is  very  largely  determined  by  the  will  of  man. 
This  is  not  to  deny  that  the  pugnacious  instinct  is 


222   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

to  be  found  in  man  as  well  as  in  the  lower  forms 
of  creation,  but  that  which  distinguishes  man  from 
his  relatives  among  the  Primates  is  his  intelligence 
and  virtue  —  his  something  more  than  instinct. 
When  reason  steps  down  from  its  throne  as  the  im- 
perial ruler  of  man's  nature,  which  is  precisely  what 
happens  in  private  feuds  and  public  wars,  then  man 
permits  his  conduct  to  be  determined  by  the  low- 
est forces  in  him  and  not  the  highest.  The  mob 
spirit  is  let  loose,  anarchy  prevails,  and  ruin  fol- 
lows fast. 

The  probability  is  that  man  possesses  both  a 
higher  nature  and  a  lower  nature  and  that  his 
higher  nature,  of  which  his  will  is  the  general  man- 
ager, is  his  real  human  nature.  It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  prove  that  this  is  essentially  brutal.  In- 
deed all  modern  experiments  in  the  treatment  of 
juvenile  delinquents  and  hardened  criminals  point 
in  exactly  the  opposite  direction.  Fortunately  we 
are  not  called  upon  to  settle  the  dispute  as  to 
whether  man  is  a  god  in  ruins  or  something  less 
noble.  It  is  enough  to  affirm  our  persuasion  that 
the  inhuman  characteristics  of  the  nature  of  man 
are  probably  the  qualities  of  an  animal  ancestry 
which  conceivably  may  be  transformed  and  re-di- 


EARTHQUAKES  OB  AVALANCHES?      223 

rected.  "  Forge  and  transform  my  passion  into 
power."  l 

There  is,  moreover,  a  further  implication  in  this 
"  human  nature  argument " ;  an  implication  even 
more  dogmatic.  War,  it  is  said,  will  continue  to 
plague  this  world  of  ours  just  as  long  as  human 
nature  is  what  it  is,  that  is  to  say,  forever,  because 
human  nature  never  changes.  It  is  dinned  into 
our  ears  that  "  human  nature  is  the  same  the  world 
over."  Let  us  not  be  misled  by  cant  phrases.  This 
one  has  a  double  meaning.  It  means,  in  the  first 
place,  that  "  the  Colonel's  lady  and  Judy  O'Grady 
are  sisters  under  the  skin."  Nobody  in  his  right 
mind  will  be  disposed  to  doubt  or  deny  the  self- 
evident  fact  that  human  nature,  regardless  of  race, 
or  colour,  or  sex,  or  creed,  is  pretty  much  the  same 
the  world  over.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  say  that 
human  nature  is  the  same  the  world  over,  at  any 
given  time,  and  quite  another  thing  to  say  that 
human  nature  is  the  same  throughout  the  long  cen- 
turies of  history.2  To  affirm  this  is  to  affirm  what 
cannot  be  proved.  It  is  a  vast  pretension. 

For  a  long  time  the  problem  of  permanence  has 

1  F.  W.  Myer's  poem  Saint  Paul. 

2  See  Alfred  Russel  Wallace's  Social  Environment  and  Moral 
Progress  and  Mrs.  John  Martin's  Is  Mankind  Advancing* 


224  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

taxed  the  acumen  of  metaphysicians.  Of  late  years 
several  scientists  have  interested  themselves  in  the 
question  of  the  presumed  immutable  laws  of  na- 
ture.1 More  than  a  dozen  years  ago  Charles  Fer- 
guson remarked  in  his  brilliant  and  prophetic  little 
book,  The  Religion  of  Democracy:2  "You  will 
not  say  as  a  man  of  science  that  gravitation  will 
remain  to-morrow  just  what  it  is  to-day,  but  only 
that  you  are  persuaded  that  if  God  changes  that 
he  will  change  everything  else  in  proportion.  And, 
doubtless,  if  the  soul  of  a  child  should  stand  in  the 
way  the  planets  would  pause  and  gravitation  would 
turn  out.  God  will  have  a  care  that  the  mill  shall 
grind  only  ashes  and  bones." 

Nor  is  this  the  place,  were  we  competent,  to  dis- 
cuss that  other  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
changes  wrought  in  the  individual  by  education 
and  training  (acquired  characteristics)  can  be 
passed  along  in  any  degree  whatever,  thus  making 
for  gradual  improvement.  But  aside  from  these 
speculative  problems  we  are  often  admonished  not 
to  confound  revolutionary  changes  in  natural  en- 
vironment or  social  conditions  with  an  essential 

1  See  papers  by  Boutroux,  Langevin  and  Henri  Poincare,  read 
before  the  International  Philosophical  Congress  in  Boulogne. 
Also  see  Wilhelm  Ostwald's  Natural  Philosophy,  particularly 
p.  30. 

2  Page  112. 


EARTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES?   225 

change  in  human  nature.  The  point  is  well  taken. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  dare  not  ignore  the 
intimate  relation  that  subsists  between  conditions 
and  character,  between  natural  environment  and 
the  kind  of  human  nature  that  is  indigenous  to  a 
certain  soil,  so  to  speak.  Hegel  tells  us  that  "  the 
State  is  the  realised  ethical  idea."  We  may  add 
that  the  thing  we  call  civilisation,  which  certainly 
changes,  is  very  largely  the  product  of  human  ef- 
fort, and  an  author  is  known  by  his  works. 

It  is  not  here  maintained  that  human  nature  cer- 
tainly changes  and  that  whenever  it  changes  it 
improves.  This  would  be  a  very  comforting  doc- 
trine; but  unhappily  it  cannot  be  proved.  Either 
affirming  or  denying  anything  positive  and  conclu- 
sive about  something  concerning  which  so  little  is 
known  is  rather  futile  business.  We  are  scarcely 
more  than  strangers  to  what  Maeterlinck  has 
called  the  Unknown  Guest  within  us.  But  it  ought 
not  to  be  difficult  to  prove  that  from  generation  to 
generation  something  happens  to  human  nature 
which  is  tantamount  to  a  change,  call  it  what  one 
pleases. 

Surely  it  does  not  follow  that  because  a  habit, 
custom,  convention  or  institution  always  has  been 
it  will  always  continue  to  be.  We  have  seen  that 


226  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

this  is  repeatedly  contradicted  by  history.  But  it 
is  with  social  customs  as  with  personal  habits,  the 
deeper  rootage  they  have  taken  the  harder  they 
are  to  eradicate.  Nobody  will  deny  that  ancient 
customs  are  extremely  hard  to  throw  off ;  but  that  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  saying,  with  the  calm 
assurance  of  dogmatism,  that  because  something 
always  has  been  therefore  it  always  must  be.  So 
short  a  word  as  "  therefore  "  cannot  span  so  wide 
a  chasm.  It  is  too  frail  to  bear  the  weight  and 
stand  the  strain  of  analysis.  The  bridge  of  logic 
will  collapse  like  that  bridge  which  was  twice  sus- 
pended across  the  St.  Lawrence,  To  argue  in  this 
manner  is  to  reveal  symptoms  of  sleeping-sickness 
of  the  brain.  There  is  such  a  disease  as  mental 
hook-worm ;  intellectual  laziness.  Anybody  who  is 
not  too  tired  to  turn  the  pages  of  history  can,  as 
we  have  seen,  discover  for  himself,  while  waiting 
for  dinner  to  be  served,  not  one  but  many  institu- 
tions and  conventions  that  society  has  supported 
and  defended,  for  a  year  or  an  age,  and  then  at 
length  has  cast  them  away  as  worn-out.  One  after 
another  these  customs  have  had  their  little  day  and 
ceased  to  be. 

Most  fighting  men  and  their  teachers  are  self- 
reliant.     If  they  do  not  actually  quote,  they  cer- 


EAKTHQUAKES  OE  AVALANCHES?     227 

tainly  believe  the  sentiment  of  Henley's  poem,  "  I 
am  the  master  of  my  fate :  I  am  the  captain  of  my 
soul."  And  yet,  oddly  enough,  one  of  the  com- 
monest arguments  which  they  employ  to  dispel  the 
dream  of  possible  peace  is  that  war  is  necessary 
because  there  is  a  law  of  nature  which  provides  that 
all  advance  must  be  through  struggle  in  which 
only  the  fit  survive.  If  this  is  not  fatalism  then 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  fatalism.  What  the  con- 
tention practically  amounts  to  is  this :  The  law  of 
natural  selection  makes  all  advance  contingent 
upon  struggle  —  the  struggle  for  existence:  it  ap- 
plies among  men  as  among  lower  animals,  among 
nations  as  among  men ;  when  war  "  comes "  we 
should  be  ready  and  should  accept  it  without  mak- 
ing a  wry  face;  it  is  nobody's  fault;  let  us,  there- 
fore, be  patient  and  brave  under  the  bludgeonings 
of  fate;  in  the  fell  clutch  of  circumstance  let  us 
neither  wince  nor  cry  aloud;  comets  come  whether 
we  want  them  to  or  not,  and  so  do  wars,  and  so  on, 
and  so  forth.  This  is  the  line  of  reasoning.  Now, 
nobody  is  going  to  deny  that  there  is  an  element  of 
fatality  in  human  life,  a  time  and  chance  that  hap- 
peneth  to  all  men.  That  much  can  be  granted 
without  giving  the  case  away.  But  we  vehemently 
deny  that  we  are  straws  blown  by  the  vagrant  winds 


228  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

of  Destiny.  We  are  not,  unless  we  permit  our- 
selves to  be,  mere  puppets  or  pawns  in  the  drama 
or  game  of  life.  "  The  fatalistic  view  of  the  war 
function,"  wrote  William  James,  "is  to  me  non- 
sense, for  I  know  that  war-making  is  due  to  defi- 
nite motives  and  subject  to  prudential  checks  and 
reasonable  criticisms,  just  like  any  other  form  of 
enterprise."  l 

It  will  readily  be  granted  that  struggle  is  an  im- 
portant factor  in  development.  But  a  natural  law 
is  not  an  edict  of  Destiny.  What  is  called  a  law 
of  nature  is  simply  the  rule  established  by  recur- 
rent repetitions  —  a  description  of  what  happens  so 
often  as  to  seem  invariable.  But  surely  it  is  a 
total  misreading  of  the  Darwinian  law  to  contend 
that  all  advance  is  through  combat.2  Is  it  not  the 
gist  of  the  theory  of  evolution  that  man  secures  and 
maintains  a  foothold  on  this  planet  by  meeting  and 
conquering  untoward  conditions  and  hostile  beasts? 
Does  not  the  survival  of  the  fittest  merely  mean 
the  successful  attempt  to  adapt  one's  self  to  one's 
environment?  If  the  individual  or  the  species  suc- 
ceeds in  this  process  of  adaptation  (by  virtue  of 
protective  colouration,  elongated  necks,  and  what- 

1  Memories  and  Studies,  p.  286. 

2  See  George  Nasmyth's  Social  Progress  and  the  Darwinian 
Theory. 


EARTHQUAKES  OR  AVALANCHES?  229 

not)  then  it  persists;  if  it  fails,  then  it  goes  to  the 
wall.  This  physical  competition,  often  fierce  and 
not  seldom  fatal,  frequently  goes  on  between  per- 
sons and  families  and  tribes,  but  it  is  not  the  sine 
qua  non  of  progress. 

Moreover,  it  has  been  explained  by  competent 
students,  and  among  them  Herbert  Spencer 1  and 
Peter  Kropotkin,2  that  the  instinct  towards  mu- 
tual sympathy  and  aid  is  quite  as  natural  and  com- 
mon among  the  lower  beasts  and  primitive  men  as 
is  antipathy  and  combativeness.  It  ought  to  be 
apparent  that  the  real  struggle  of  life  is  man's 
struggle  with  the  hostile  forces  in  his  own  nature 
and  with  the  alien  elements  in  the  natural  world, 
so  dramatically  pictured  in  the  Forest  Scene  of 
Maurice  Maeterlinck's  Blue  Bird.3  Hence  it  is  by 

1  See  Herbert  Spencer's  Data  of  Ethics. 

2  See  Peter  Kropotkin's  Mutual  Aid  a  Factor  in  Evolution. 

3  Novicov,  the  brilliant  Russian  sociologist,  in  his  Critique  du 
darwinisme  Sortale,  emphasised  the  distinctions  between  numer- 
ous varieties  of  forces.     Dr.  Fried,  winner  of  the  Nobel  Peace 
Prize  for  1911,  summarises,  in  his  recent  volume,  The  Restora- 
tion of  Europe  (p.  35),  the  substance  of  Novicov's  idea  in  the 
following  fashion: 

"The  stars  attract  matter;  the  stronger  animal  eats  the 
weaker,  and  by  digestion  transforms  it  into  a  part  of  its  own 
self.  But  one  celestial  body  can  not  chew  another,  nor  can  a 
lion  attract  cells  away  from  an  antelope.  The  astronomic  strug- 
gle is  different  from  the  biological,  and  so  is  the  sociological. 
The  fact  that  the  lion  tears  open  the  antelope  does  not  imply 
that  the  massacre  of  the  population  of  one  state  by  that  of  an- 
other is  a  natural  law.  But  imperialism  leads  us  into  just  such 
a  sea  of  error.  It  breeds  conceit  and  turns  a  noble  patriotism 
into  Chauvinism." 


230  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

co-operation,  and  not  by  competition,  that  man 
strengthens  himself  for  his  difficult  test  with  the 
facts  and  forces  in  this  world  that  make  life  hard. 


CHAPTER  XV 
DRAINING  THE  SWAMPS 

THE  third  article  in  the  creed  of  militarism  says 
that  Privilege  is  an  Advantage;  in  a  word,  Imperi- 
alism. Medievalism  in  government  is  akin  to  im- 
perialism in  trade.  Monarchy  is  monopoly  in 
terms  of  politics,  and  monopoly  is  monarchy  in 
terms  of  economics.  The  imperialism  we  are  now 
thinking  about  is  a  new  kind  of  imperialism,  what 
Frederick  Howe  has  called  "  financial  imperial- 
ism." * 

At  the  close  of  the  last  century  Charles  Fergu- 
son wrote :  —  "In  politics  two  ideas,  reducible  to 
one,  have  dominated  the  century :  the  building  up  of 
huge  political  aggregates  and  the  winning  of  for- 
eign markets.  Under  Caesar  and  Charlemagne  the 
imperial  idea  was  not  without  nobility  and  beauty 
—  it  was  a  world-communion ;  it  aimed  to  take  in 
everything.  But  this  nineteenth-century  market 
rivalry  of  subventioned  traders  —  this  ruck  and 
drift  of  blind  masses  that  huddle  to  the  hunger-call 

i  Why  War?  by  Frederick  Howe. 

231 


232  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

and  the  shibboleths  of  Chauvinism  —  is  a  spectacle 
without  nobility  or  beauty.  One  empire  seemed  an 
inspiring  possibility;  a  multiplicity  of  empires  — 
French,  German,  Austrian,  Russian,  English,  Ital- 
ian, Turkish,  American,  and  so  on  —  is  mere  un- 
reason and  the  flow  of  fate.  It  is  the  obscurantism 
of  politics  and  the  evacuation  of  the  ideal.  Patri- 
otism has  become  the  refuge  not  necessarily  of 
'  scoundrels/  but  of  traders,  professional  soldiers, 
and  politicians.'-  1 

We  have  already  pointed  out  that  an  examina- 
tion of  the  wars  of  history  and  an  analysis  of  their 
causes  shows  that  they  were  motived  by  either  the 
passion  for  liberty,  or  the  hunger  for  food,  or  the 
love  for  combat,  or  the  lust  for  power,  or  the  greed 
for  gain,  or  the  desire  for  privilege.  It  is  neither 
fantastic  nor  extravagant  to  suggest  that  the  real 
task  of  modern  diplomacy  should  be  to  undertake 
an  exhaustive  study  of  wars  new  and  old  for  the 
purpose  of  discovering  not  only  the  occasions  which 
precipitated  hostilities  but  what  the  underlying 
causes  were  and  are  which  made  war  " inevitable." 
Constructive  statesmanship  would  then  proceed  to 

i  Religion  of  Democracy,  p.  164.  See  also  article  by  Henri 
Lambert  entitled  "  International  Morality  and  Exchange,"  In 
the  Journal  des  Econotni*te*,  now  published  in  pamphlet  form 
with  a  special  introduction  by  the  Rt.  Hon.  Lord  Courtney  of 
Penwith. 


DRAINING  THE  SWAMPS  233 

find  and  to  administer  such  remedies  as  might  be 
needed.  Many  of  the  causes  that  made  for  wars  in 
past  times  no  longer  have  any  force,  or  at  any  rate 
they  are  less  and  less  influential.  For  example, 
the  cause  of  many  primitive  wars  was  undoubtedly 
the  hunger  for  food.  If  it  is  urged  that  to-day 
wars  are  brought  about  by  the  exigent  needs  of  na- 
tions to  expand  and  colonise  in  order  to  provide 
for  their  increased  population,  the  answer  is  that 
emigration  is  possible  without  colonisation.  But 
if  colonies  are  considered  to  be  really  necessary, 
then  negotiation  might  very  conceivably  handle  the 
problem  by  the  peaceable  partition  of  unexploited 
regions. 

But  of  course  everybody  knows  that  a  motive 
quite  the  opposite  is  now  much  more  prevalent  and 
dominant.  Instead  of  underproduction  of  food 
and  articles  of  common  use,  there  is  vast  over- 
production. Due  to  the  invention  of  modern  ma- 
chinery, production  has  steadily  gained  on  con- 
sumption. And  consumption  has  not  been  able  to 
keep  up  with  production  very  largely  because  the 
distribution  of  the  gains  of  industry  have  not  been 
equitable.  In  other  words,  the  workers  who  stood 
in  need  of  things  could  not  buy  them  with  the  wages 
that  they  were  paid,  and  so  new  markets  had  to  be 


234   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

found  for  excess  goods  and  they  were  found  abroad. 
It  is  hardly  open  to  doubt  that  the  motive  here  is 
just  plain  greed  for  gain;  nothing  more,  nothing 
less. 

Akin  to  it  is  the  motive  that  we  have  termed  the 
desire  for  privilege,  which  has  to  do  with  what  is 
sometimes  called  mercantilism,  and  sometimes 
called  financial  imperialism.  In  addition  to  the 
surfeit  of  goods,  there  has  been  in  all  the  leading 
nations,  because  of  maldistribution  of  wealth,  a 
great  surplus  of  capital.  This  surplus  capital  has 
sought  and  found  investment  in  the  backward  parts 
of  the  world  where  excessive  profits  might  be 
reaped.  Algeria,  Egypt,  Tripoli,  Turkey,  Morocco, 
China,  the  Congo,  Mexico, —  these  have  presented 
virgin  territory  for  quick  gains.  Concessions  are 
sought  and  obtained  in  the  way  of  harbour  facili- 
ties and  transportation  facilities;  concessions  to 
open  mines,  cut  forests,  lay  railroads,  work  rubber 
plantations,  build  irrigation  dams,  and  erect  power 
plants.  Pre-emptions  and  monopolies  are  sought 
and  secured.  For  the  most  part  these  investments 
are  made  and  loans  placed  in  countries  which  have 
little  or  no  government.  The  risks  are  therefore 
large;  but  instead  of  taking  these  risks  themselves 
and  then  accepting  as  their  reward  the  enormous 


DKAINING  THE  SWAMPS  235 

profits  which  such  investments  yield,  financiers  ma- 
noeuvred to  win  the  favour  of  diplomats  in  order  to 
obtain  the  concessions  and  then,  for  protection, 
they  depended  upon  the  principle  that  a  country 
will  always  defend  the  persons  and  properties  of  its 
nationals  anywhere  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  The 
result  is  that  when  a  quarrel  arises  over  the  Persian 
Gulf  or  over  Bosnia  and  it  becomes  necessary  to 
uphold  the  dignity  of  the  nation  and  defend  the 
rights  of  its  citizens  to  their  acquired  property  in 
far-off  regions,  large  navies  have  to  be  built  and 
equipped  and  great  armies  manned  and  made  ready 
for  such  things  as  punitive  expeditions  and  the  for- 
mation of  protectorates. 

The  grand  total  of  all  over-seas  investments 
amounts  to  more  than  forty  billions  of  dollars, 
England  alone  having  no  less  than  twenty  billions. 
The  endeavour  to  make  these  investments  secure 
and  to  uphold  the  rights  of  adventurous  financiers, 
who  happen  also  to  be  citizens,  involves  the  abuse 
of  an  organisation  which  is  paid  for  by  the  people 
as  a  whole  through  taxation  —  namely  the  armies 
and  the  navies  —  when  surely  this  military  organ- 
isation is  primarily  intended  for  the  defence  of  the 
realm  and  of  the  people  as  a  whole.  It  is  not  so 
very  different  from  the  use  of  state  militia  by  pri- 


236   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

vate  businesses  for  the  protection  of  their  threat- 
ened interests.  Another  perversion  that  is,  unhap- 
pily, all  too  common. 

The  places  where  nations  most  frequently  clash 
are  on  the  territory  of  these  weak  and  backward 
states.  These  are  the  "  arenas  of  friction "  and 
they  constitute  the  "  stakes  of  diplomacy,"  as  has 
been  clearly  pointed  out  by  Walter  Lippmann  and 
others.1  We  can  hardly  do  better  than  borrow  a 
passage  from  Mr.  Lippmann's  latest  book : 

"  This  whole  business  of  jockeying  for  position  is 
at  first  glance  so  incredibly  silly  that  many  liberals 
regard  diplomacy  as  a  cross  between  sinister  con- 
spiracy and  a  meaningless  etiquette.  It  would  be 
all  of  that  if  the  stakes  of  diplomacy  were  not  real. 
Those  stakes  have  to  be  understood,  for  without 
such  an  understanding  diplomacy  is  incomprehen- 
sible and  any  scheme  of  world  peace  an  idle  fancy. 

"  The  chief,  the  overwhelming  problem  of  diplo- 
macy, seems  to  be  the  weak  state  —  the  Balkans, 
the  African  sultanates,  Turkey,  China,  and  Latin 
America,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  Argen- 
tine, Chile,  and  Brazil.  These  states  are  '  weak ' 
because  they  are  industrially  backward  and  at  pres- 

i  See  Frederick  Howe's  Why  Warf  H.  N.  Bradford's  The 
War  of  Steel  and  Gold,  and  John  A.  Hobson's  Towards  Inter- 
national Government,  Imperialism,  and  The  New  Protectionism. 


DRAINING  THE  SWAMPS  237 

ent  politically  incompetent.  They  are  rich  in  re- 
sources and  cheap  labour,  poor  in  capital,  poor  in 
political  experience,  poor  in  the  power  of  defence. 
The  government  of  these  states  is  the  supreme  prob- 
lem of  diplomacy.  .  .  . 

"  The  plain  fact  is  that  the  interrelation  of  peo- 
ples has  gone  so  far  that  to  advocate  international 
laissez-faire  now  is  to  speak  a  counsel  of  despair. 
Commercial  cunning,  lust  of  conquest,  rum,  bibles, 
rifles,  missionaries,  traders,  concessionaires,  have 
brought  the  two  civilisations  into  contact  and  the 
problem  created  must  be  solved,  not  evaded.  .  .  . 

"  It  is  essential  to  remember  that  what  turns  a 
territory  into  a  diplomatic  '  problem '  is  the  com- 
bination of  natural  resources,  cheap  labour,  mar- 
kets, defencelessness,  corrupt  and  inefficient  gov- 
ernment. The  desert  of  Sahara  is  no  '  problem,' 
except  where  there  are  oases  and  trade  routes. 
Switzerland  is  no  '  problem,'  for  Switzerland  is  a 
highly  organised  modern  state.  But  Mexico  is  a 
problem,  and  Haiti,  and  Turkey,  and  Persia.  They 
have  the  pretension  of  political  independence  which 
they  do  not  fulfil.  They  are  seething  with  corrup- 
tion, eaten  up  with  '  foreign '  concessions,  and  un- 
able to  control  the  adventurers  they  attract  or 
safeguard  the  rights  which  these  adventurers  claim. 


238   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

More  foreign  capital  is  invested  in  the  United 
States  than  in  Mexico,  but  the  United  States  is  not 
a  '  problem '  and  Mexico  is.  The  difference  was 
hinted  at  in  President  Wilson's  speech  at  Mobile. 
Foreigners  invest  in  the  United  States,  and  they 
are  assured  that  life  will  be  reasonably  safe  and 
that  titles  to  property  are  secured  by  orderly  legal 
means.  But  in  Mexico  they  are  given  '  conces- 
sions/ which  means  that  they  secure  extra  privi- 
leges and  run  greater  risks,  and  they  count  upon 
the  support  of  European  governments  or  of  the 
United  States  to  protect  them  and  their  prop- 
erty. .  .  . 

"  Imperialism  in  our  day  begins  generally  as  an 
attempt  to  police  and  pacify.  This  attempt  stimu- 
lates national  pride,  it  creates  bureaucrats  with  a 
vested  interest  in  imperialism,  it  sucks  in  and  re- 
ceives added  strength  from  concessionaires  and 
traders  who  are  looking  for  economic  privileges. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  certain  classes  in  a  nation 
gain  by  imperialism,  though  to  the  people  as  a 
whole  the  adventure  may  mean  nothing  more  than 
an  increased  burden  of  taxes.  .  .  . 

"  The  whole  question  of  imperialism  is  as  com- 
plex as  the  motives  of  the  African  trader  who  sub- 
sidises the  African  missionary.  He  does  not  know 


DKAINING  THE  SWAMPS  239 

where  business  ends  and  religion  begins ;  he  is  able 
to  make  no  sharp  distinction  between  his  humani- 
tarianism  and  his  profits.  He  feels  that  business  is 
a  good  thing,  and  religion  is  a  good  thing.  He 
likes  to  help  himself,  and  to  see  others  helped.  The 
same  complexity  of  motives  appear  in  imperialist 
statesmen.  .  .  . 

"  Who  should  intervene  in  backward  states,  what 
the  intervention  shall  mean,  how  the  protectorate 
shall  be  conducted  —  this  is  the  bone  and  sinew  of 
modern  diplomacy.  The  weak  spots  of  the  world 
are  the  arenas  of  friction."  1 

If  it  be  true,  and  apparently  it  is,  that  these  sec- 
tions of  the  world  are  the  swamp  regions  in  which 
are  bred  the  germs  that  spread  the  disease  of  war, 
then  it  would  seem  that  the  most  pressing  task  of 
diplomacy  is  the  draining  of  the  swamps.  A  few 
General  Gorgases  among  the  statesmen  who  would 
not  balk  at  the  stupendous  job  of  initiating  an  in- 
ternational movement  that  would  result  in  the 
cleaning  up  of  these  backward  regions,  would  go  a 
long  way  toward  reducing  the  probability  of  war. 

i  The  Stakes  of  Diplomacy,  Chapter  VII. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
THE  FRONTIERS  OF  FRIENDSHIP 

THE  fourth  article  in  the  creed  of  militarism  says 
that  States  are  Natural  Enemies;  in  a  word,  Na- 
tionality.  It  will  not  be  an  easy  task  to  apportion 
the  relative  share  of  blame  for  this  present  war 
which  each  of  the  several  articles  in  the  creed  of 
militarism  must  shoulder.  But  extravagant  ideas 
of  nationality,  false  doctrines  of  patriotism,  and 
the  theory  that  states  are  natural  enemies, —  these 
will  have  to  carry  a  heavy  load. 

Charles  Ferguson  has  somewhere  pointed  out 
in  one  of  his  profound  and  brilliant  little  books  * 
that  if  liberty  means  anything  at  all  it  means  the 
right  of  a  person  to  live  his  own  life  in  his  own 
way.  What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the 
whole  world  and  lose  his  own  individuality?  And 
what  shall  it  profit  a  woman  if  she  gain  a  world 
of  comfort  and  security  and  lose  her  own  person- 
ality? And  what  shall  it  profit  a  nation  if  it  gain 

i  See  The  Religion  of  Democracy,  The  Affirmative  Intellect, 
The  University  Militant  and  Tin-  Great 

240 


THE  FRONTIERS  OF  FRIENDSHIP      241 

prosperity  and  assured  peace  and  lose  its  nation- 
ality—  its  soul?  We  must  not  permit  pleasant 
platitudes  about  internationalism  and  the  brother- 
hood of  man  to  blind  us  to  the  real  differences  be- 
tween races  and  peoples.  However  these  essential 
differences  may  have  come  about  is  a  speculative 
problem  for  the  philosophers  of  history.1  Our  busi- 
ness is  to  recognise  the  perfectly  obvious  fact  that 
there  are  these  vital  differences  and  our  pressing 
problem  is  to  bring  about  a  rapprochement,  an  ad- 
justment, a  modus  vivendi.  The  poet  sings  that 
East  is  East  and  West  is  West  and  that  never  the 
twain  can  meet  and  we  know  that  what  he  means 
is  they  can  never  mingle  and  fuse  and  amalgamate. 
But  as  for  meeting, —  that  is  precisely  what  is  al- 
ways happening  and  usually  when  they  meet  nowa- 
days they  clash.  Something  may  be  done,  indeed 
something  must  be  done,  to  soften  the  blow  when 
they  clash.  But  nationhood  and  nationalism  are 
two  quite  different  things.  In  other  words,  na- 
tional boundaries  are  mostly  superficial  and  arbi- 
trary, and  do  not  always  or  often  coincide  with 
essential  racial  differences.  A  constructive  pro- 
gramme of  international  statesmanship  will  mini- 

i  See  the  Introduction  to  Hegel's  Philosophy  of  History.    Also 
Chapter  III  of  Bagehot's  Physics  and  Politics. 


242  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

mise  these  artificial  distinctions  and  yet  not  inter- 
fere with  the  development  of  the  special  genius 
of  a  particular  people.1 

We  shall  probably  have  to  cast  about  for  a  new 
principle  of  patriotism  and  frame  a  new  definition. 
The  time  has  come  to  discard  old  notions  of  patriot- 
ism and  throw  them  into  the  wastebasket  of  history. 
They  have  already  wrought  enough  havoc  and  woe 
in  the  world  and  we  shall  be  glad  when  they  are 
gone.  There  is  really  nothing  at  all  revolutionary 
about  this.  Our  loyalties  reach  out  in  concentric 
circles.  We  cannot  love  an  abstraction  or  the  ghost 
of  a  reality.  But  we  can  love  and  serve  a  person 
or  an  institution  that  is  tangent  to  our  daily  lives. 
Whenever  we  come  to  feel  that  the  one  or  the  other 
has  ceased  to  have  any  vital  relation  to  our  lives 
our  love  becomes  only  a  recollection,  our  loyalty 
little  more  than  cant  or  self-deception.  On  the 
other  hand,  as  our  genuine  interests  and  vital  con- 
tacts reach  outward  our  hearts  are  very  likely  to 

i  In  the  course  of  an  eight-column  editorial  article  in  the  New 
Republic  for  January  13,  1917,  Mr.  Herbert  Croly  says,  "The 
peculiar  merit  of  the  plan  of  a  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  as  com- 
pared with  other  plans  of  pacifist  organisation,  consists  in  the 
promise  of  its  proposed  method  of  escape  from  the  burden  of  the 
baleful  antithesis  between  national  ambition  and  international 
order.  It  establishes  international  order  on  the  foundation  of 
national  responsibility.  It  seeks  to  create  a  community  of  liv- 
ing nations  rather  than  a  community  of  superseded  nations  of 
denationalised  peoples." 


THE  FRONTIERS  OF  FRIENDSHIP      243 

go  with  them.     For  where  your  treasure  is,  there 
will  your  heart  be  also. 

The  old  patriotism  was  negative ;  the  new  patriot- 
ism is  positive.  The  old  patriotism  meant  hate  of 
another  nation;  the  new  patriotism  means  love  of 
your  own  country.  The  old  patriotism  has  sown 
the  seeds  of  sedition  against  humanity  and  civil- 
isation. It  has  sown  to  the  wind  and  reaped  to 
the  whirlwind.  It  has  sown  the  dragon's  teeth 
which  have  sprung  up  as  soldiers,  full-armed  and 
panoplied  and  ready  for  the  combat.  And  now  we 
have  garnered  the  awful  harvest  of  hate.  For  gen- 
erations children  in  school  have  been  taught  that 
the  acme,  the  apotheosis,  the  perfection  of  patriot- 
ism was  hate  of  somebody  beyond  the  borders  and 
frontiers  of  the  nation.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there 
are  no  frontiers  to  friendship  and  the  language  of 
love  is  an  Esperanto.  Enmity  is  the  perversion  of 
patriotism.  It  is  a  good  thing  gone  wrong,  and 
the  corruption  of  the  best  is  the  worst  corruption. 
This  is  not  to  say  that,  when  the  nations  are  drunk 
with  the  intoxication  of  aroused  hate,  when  their 
territory  has  been  invaded  by  foreigners,  their 
homes  burned  and  their  cities  laid  waste,  there  will 
not  be  aroused  a  spirit  of  revenge  which,  when  once 
kindled,  will  spread  like  a  prairie  fire.  But  hostili- 


244  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

ties  would  not  often  begin  between  one  national 
group  and  another  unurged  and  unbidden.  Let  the 
dead  past  bury  its  dead.  The  dawn  is  on  the  hori- 
zon. 

The  notion  of  patriotism  as  hatred  is  not  only 
dangerous  doctrine;  it  is  false  doctrine.  There  is 
such  a  thing  as  religious  devotion,  and  then  there 
is  such  a  thing  as  sanctimonious  cant.  There  is  a 
difference  as  wide  as  the  ocean  between  liberty 
and  license,  between  love  and  lust,  between  en- 
thusiasm and  hysteria.  So,  also,  there  is  a  true 
patriotism  and  there  is  a  false  patriotism.  It  will 
never  do  to  be  vaguely  idealistic  about  "  the  love 
of  humanity  "  and  then  speak  reproachfully  about 
"narrow  love  of  country."  Patriotism  is  more 
than  mushy  sentimentality.  It  is  all  very  well  to 
be  cynical  about  the  value  of  mere  sentiment,  but 
it  is  probably  more  than  an  aphorism  to  say  that 
the  world  is  ruled  by  sentiment  —  or  sentimental- 
ity. Take  the  matter  of  the  conduct  of  war  itself. 
No  practical  statesman,  however  cynical  and  blase* 
he  himself  may  happen  to  be  about  the  beautiful 
sentiment  of  loyalty,  would,  for  a  moment,  discount 
the  very  real  value  of  patriotism.  He  would  know, 
as  a  matter  of  statistics,  that  no  modern  grand 
scale  war  could  possibly  be  conducted  for  a  month 


THE  FRONTIERS  OF  FRIENDSHIP      245 

without  patriotism  or  something  "just  as  good." 
Indeed  this  is  precisely  why  he  so  sedulously  cul- 
tivates the  habit  of  patriotism  in  his  subjects  or  fel- 
low-citizens. There  are  not  enough  mercenary 
soldiers  for  sale  in  all  the  markets  of  the  world  and 
you  cannot  win  wars  without  soldiers. 

False  patriotism,  hate  of  another  country,  is 
fostered  by  pride,  prejudice,  envy,  jingoism  or 
fanaticism.  True  patriotism,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  love  of  one's  own  country  and  love  of  one's  own 
country  does  not  mean  love  of  a  particular  piece 
of  ground,  which  may  be  provincialism;  nor  of  a 
select  kind  of  folk,  which  may  be  bigotry ;  nor  of  a 
certain  sort  of  government,  which  is  probably  dog- 
matism ;  nor  of  a  special  style  of  culture,  which  is 
more  than  likely  racial  or  national  egotism.  True 
patriotism,  per  contra,  means  four  things:  First, 
it  means  reverence  for  the  past  traditions  of  one's 
country;  second,  it  means  devotion  to  the  present 
institutions  of  one's  country;  third,  it  means  loy- 
alty to  the  future  ideals  of  one's  country;  and 
fourth,  it  means  valour  to  fight,  if  needs  must  be,  in 
defence  of  these  same  institutions  and  ideals.1 

i  Nobody  will  quarrel  with  Mr.  Homer  Lea  when  he  pleads  the 
cause  of  duty  and  devotion  to  the  homeland.  "  By  the  efforts 
men  make,"  he  writes  in  The  Day  of  the  Saxon  (p.  2),  "to  pre- 
serve their  families  from  want,  from  servitude  or  destruction  do 
we  judge  their  domestic  virtues.  In  such  a  manner,  only  to  a 


246   A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

We  may  paraphrase  Tertullian  and  say  that  the 
blood  of  the  patriot  is  the  seed  of  the  State.  But 
are  crimson  foundations  necessary?  We  are  told 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  obey  and  die  at  the  command 
of  the  State.1  But  are  we  to  have  no  choice  in 
the  matter?  The  time  was  when  personal  vengeance 
was  considered  a  duty;  but  times  have  changed. 
Perhaps  we  shall  some  day  have  the  higher  cour- 
age to  refuse  to  die  —  except  for  justice  and  liberty. 
May  the  time  never  come  when  we  shall  be  too 
cowardly  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  our  friends. 
Now  the  sentiment  of  loyalty  is  as  universal  as 
humanity,  but  its  pulse  sometimes  "  skips  "  and  is 
weak.  War  has  the  effect  of  quickening  and  stim- 
ulating loyalty.  Frequently  this  is  blind  devotion, 
a  feeling  and  a  passion.  But  true  loyalty  must  be 
reciprocal.  If  our  friends  betray  us  they  are  no 
longer  our  friends  and  we  cannot  continue  to  love 

larger  degree,  should  judgment  be  rendered  upon  these  same 
men  according  to  the  efforts  they  make  toward  a  like  preserva- 
tion of  their  race.  If  a  man  who  gives  over  his  family  to  the 
vicissitudes  of  his  neglect  is  deserving  of  scorn,  how  great 
should  be  the  contempt  felt  for  him  who  evades  the  obligations 
he  owes  his  race  and  gives  over,  not  alone  his  family,  but  all  his 
people  to  conquest  or  destruction.  Public  fealty  is  only  a  nobler 
conception  of  the  duty  a  man  owes  his  family.  A  nation  is  a 
union  of  families;  patriotism  the  synthesis  of  their  domestic 
virtues.  The  ruin  of  states,  like  the  ruin  of  families,  comes 
from  one  cause  —  neglect.  To  neglect  one's  family  is  to  lose  it: 
to  neglect  one's  country  is  to  perish  with  it  Individuals  are  a 
part  of  the  world  only  in  the  duration  or  memory  of  their  race." 
i  See  Charles  Rann  Kennedy's  The  Terrible  Meek. 


THE  FRONTIERS  OF  FRIENDSHIP      247 

them.  If  we  are  led  astray  by  princes  or  dema- 
gogues our  loyalty  to  them  is  only  a  pretension, 
compelled  by  fear. 

The  theory  of  Hobbes  that  warfare  is  the  natural 
state  of  man  is  far  from  proved.1  The  argument 
for  racial  and  national  loyalties  is  more  reason- 
able. We  may  well  believe  that  blood  is  thicker 
than  water;  but  to-day  unanimity  is  a  stronger 
bond  than  consanguinity,  and  it  frequently  hap- 
pens that  people  on  opposite  sides  of  a  border  are 
drawn  into  closer  intimacies  by  mutual  interests 
and  purposes  than  unlike  people  in  tl>e  same  coun- 
try. In  the  matter  of  personal  habits  and  charac- 
teristics, we  emphasise  to-day  the  influence  of  en- 
vironment above  heredity.2  Much  the  same  thing 
is  true  as  to  national  and  racial  inheritance.  It  is 
far  less  important  than  social  environment  and 
moral  ideals.  The  time  may  come  when  we  will  be 
ready  to  say  "  the  world  is  my  country,  to  do  good 
is  my  religion,"  but  that  time  has  not  come  yet, 
and  forced  growth  often  means  premature  death. 

iSee  The  Forks  of  the  Road,  by  Washington  Gladden, 
a  Alfred  Russel  Wallace,  Letters  and  Reminiscences. 


CHAPTEE  XVII 
SOULS  IN  REVOLT 

THE  fifth  article  in  the  creed  of  force  says  that 
Might  Makes  Right;  in  a  word,  Materialism.  War 
is  universal  sabotage.  As  far  back  as  the  record 
of  human  history  goes,  one  group  seems  to  have 
taken  a  malicious  delight  in  throwing  its  wooden 
boot  into  the  machinery  of  another  group.  Slowly 
it  dawned  upon  the  intelligences  of  men  that  all 
this  was  very  stupid,  that  it  was,  in  fact,  social 
suicide.  Men  looked  about  them  and  saw  that  in- 
dividual advance  was  dependent  upon  personal 
will.  They  observed  that  so  long  as  they  believed 
in  the  omnipotence  of  Nature  they  were  bound  to 
worship  her  might  and  crouch  in  abject  fear.  Just 
as  soon  as  their  wills  awoke  to  consciousness  they 
began  to  conquer  and  control  the  forces  of  environ- 
ment and  to  remake  the  world  to  suit  their  fancy. 
It  did  not  demand  any  considerable  skill  in  reason- 
ing to  infer  from  this  that  social  progress  also  must 
wait  upon  the  integration  of  the  social  will. 
It  was  seen  that  society  would  go  ahead  faster 

248 


SOULS  IN  REVOLT  249 

if  it  could  catch  a  ride.  And  so  it  was  that  institu- 
tions were  invented  —  the  vehicles  of  progress. 
The  earliest  form  of  social  co-operation,  the  first 
state,  was  no  doubt  a  clumsy  and  rickety  affair. 
But  the  state  has  not  remained  static.  The  busi- 
ness of  reformers  has  been  to  improve  the  model 
of  the  vehicle  year  after  year,  age  after  age.  Revo- 
lutionists, losing  their  temper,  have  tried  to  smash 
the  car  of  progress,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  im- 
patient idealists  have  talked  and  acted  as  if  they 
thought  progress  ought  to  be  a  joy-ride  to  Elysium. 
Again  and  again  these  vehicles  have  broken  down, 
or  their  engines  have  gone  dead,  with  the  result 
that  instead  of  helping  us  along  they  have  blocked 
the  traffic  and  hindered  advance.  This,  in  brief, 
is  the  history  of  the  State,  the  Church,  and  the 
School. 

Is  government  a  necessary  evil  and  is  that  gov- 
ernment therefore  best  which  governs  least?  Per- 
haps this  is  still  a  moot  question.  We  may  have 
our  choice  of  several  theories.  We  may,  if  we  pre- 
fer, believe  in  philosophical  anarchy,  which  is  the 
notion  that  an  ideal  society  would  be  a  voluntary 
association  of  absolutely  independent  individuals. 
This  idea,  reductio  ad  absurdum,  means  that  the 
best  possible  government  would  be  no  government 


250  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

at  all.  Or,  we  may  go  all  the  way  to  the  other 
extreme,  and  believe  that  society  is  more  important 
than  any  individual,  and  that  therefore  we  should 
forget  ourselves  and  work  always  for  the  greatest 
good  of  the  greatest  number,  symbolised  in  the 
State.  A  corollary  of  this  proposition  is  the  axiom 
that  the  seat  of  authority  is  a  sovereign  State. 
Or,  again,  we  may  not  go  to  either  extreme,  but 
may  put  our  faith  in  practical  democracy,  in  gov- 
ernment of,  by,  and  for  the  people,  to  the  end  that 
Freedom,  with  Responsibility,  may  be  denied  to 
none.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  democracy  and  im- 
plies the  fundamental  principle  of  politics,  which 
is  compromise.  The  first  and  most  important 
article  in  the  creed  of  democracy  is  the  belief  that 
the  pearl  of  great  price  is  personality,  and  that 
the  state,  or  government,  is  merely  a  means  to  an 
end,  which  end  is  the  enhancement  of  all  indi- 
viduals by  co-operative  enterprise.  This  must 
be  what  Edmund  Burke  meant  when  he  called  gov- 
ernment a  partnership. 

Florence  Nightingale  used  to  say  that  hospitals 
should  not  spread  disease  and  make  people  sick. 
It  is  equally  true  that  governments  should  not 
spread  misery  and  make  people  unhappy.  The 
perversion  of  government  is  privilege.  It  is  now 


SOULS  IN  REVOLT  251 

and  always  has  been.  That  is  why  progress  has 
been  so  painfully  retarded.  Governments  have 
been  used  by  designing  individuals  or  cliques  to 
satisfy  the  lust  for  personal  power  and  the  greed 
for  private  gain.  But  how  can  one  know  that  gov- 
ernment is  perverted  unless  one  first  knows  the  true 
purpose  and  proper  function  of  government? 
What  is  government  for?  One  answer  is  that 
given  by  Treitschke  when  he  says,  "  The  State 
must  have  the  most  emphatic  will  that  can  be  im- 
agined. .  .  .  The  State  is  the  most  extremely  real 
person,  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  word,  that  ex- 
ists. .  .  .  We  cannot  imagine  the  Roman  State 
humane,  or  encouraging  Art  and  Science.  .  .  . 
The  State  would  no  longer  be  what  it  has  been  and 
is,  did  it  not  stand  visibly  girt  about  with  armed 
might.  .  .  .  The  State  is,  above  all,  Power." l 
If  this  is  the  accepted  notion  of  what  constitutes 
and  characterises  a  true  State,  then  certain  con- 
sequences follow  and  one  of  them  is  almost  sure  to 
be  war.  One  who  spake  not  as  the  scribes  said 
that  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath;  that  the  individual  is  greater 
than  any  institution.  This  is  as  true  in  respect 
to  government,  and  the  instruments  of  government, 

i  Politics,  Vol.  I,  pp.  17,  18,  22,  23. 


252  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

as  it  is  in  respect  to  any  other  institution.  The 
perversion  comes  in  when  we  substitute,  or  pre 
tend  to  substitute,  the  sovereignty  of  the  state  foi 
the  sovereignty  of  the  soul;  the  divine  rights  oi 
kings  for  the  diviner  rights  of  men  —  to  life,  lib 
erty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

The  problem  of  morality,  or  justice  (which  ii 
social  morality),  is  a  difficult  one  to  unravel 
Modern  militarists,  like  a  certain  ancient  militar 
1st,  would  cut  the  Gordian  knot  with  a  sharj 
sword.  And  this  is  a  true  symbol  of  the  doctrine 
that  might  makes  right. 

Inasmuch  as  we  have  not  been  furnished  witl 
charts  of  character  and  detailed  drawings  of  duty 
it  is  often  very  hard  to  determine  what  is  right 
particularly  as  moral  values  fluctuate  like  othei 
values  from  age  to  age  and  sometimes  with  a  change 
of  climate.  We  blithely  say  that  God  is  the  fina 
Judge  of  right,  but  as  God  does  not  write  his  de 
cisions  in  letters  of  fire  across  the  scroll  of  the 
heavens,  how  are  we  going  to  know?  There  are 
but  two  possible  ways  of  discovering  the  will  o 
God.  The  first  is  what  we  may  call  the  methoc 
of  Moses,  the  notion  that  the  Infinite  selects  some 
mortal  to  hear  and  interpret  the  Voice  that  speaks 
from  a  burning  bush  or  midst  the  lightnings  o: 


SOULS  IN  REVOLT  253 

Sinai.  The  other  affirms  that  the  Kingdom  of 
God  is  within  us,  that  the  Moral  Law  is  written  on 
the  fleshly  tablets  of  the  heart.  The  former  is  the 
theory  of  theocracy  (which  soon  degenerates  into 
priestcraft  or  statecraft,  into  religious  or  political 
aristocracy) ;  the  latter  is  the  theory  of  democracy. 

Our  progress  up  out  of  barbarism  has  been  so 
slow  and  tortuous  that  we  are  jealous  of  what  gains 
we  have  made  in  respect  to  morality;  personal, 
social,  and  international.  This  is  why  we  have  all 
been  so  revolted  by  the  deliberate  and  even  boast- 
ful declaration  of  this  particular  article  in  the 
creed  of  militarism ;  this  doctrine  that  might  makes 
right.  Force  is  not  atheism,  power  is  not  atheism, 
might  is  not  atheism;  but  the  brutal  avowal  that 
might  makes  right  is  both  atheism  and  materialism. 
Militarism  is  the  religion  of  violence. 

In  modern  times  we  have  witnessed  the  revolu- 
tion of  the  people  against  the  domination  of  kings 
and  emperors  who  pretended  that  they  were  the 
earthly  ambassadors  of  a  heavenly  Deity.  We 
have  witnessed  the  revolt  of  religion  against  the 
tyranny  of  tradition.  We  have  witnessed  the  up- 
rising of  the  workers  in  protest  against  the 
cramped  conditions  of  their  life  and  labour.  We 
have  witnessed  the  rebellion  of  the  women  against 


254  A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 

prejudice  and  parasitism,  against  economic  de- 
pendence and  political  disability.  But  the  deeper 
meaning  of  all  this  unrest  —  religious,  political, 
industrial  —  has  been  a  sort  of  spiritual  rebellion ; 
souls  in  revolt.  The  souls  of  men  have  taken  up 
arms  against  the  menace  of  machinery  and  the 
menace  of  materialism,  lest  they  be  crushed  by  the 
cogs  of  the  wheels  within  wheels  or  buried  beneath 
the  weight  of  mud  and  matter. 

This  is  the  true  explanation  for  the  hostility  to 
Germany  by  those  whose  natural  disposition  would 
be  friendly  and  not  inimical.  It  is  because  they 
have  been  forced  to  believe  that  she  has  ruthlessly 
trampled  all  the  ideals  of  the  modern  world  into 
the  bloody  mire  of  an  outworn  creed.  It  is  not 
because  England  is  good  and  Germany  is  bad  that 
public  opinion,  for  the  most  part,  has  sided  with 
the  Entente  Allies  as  against  the  Central  Powers 
in  this  present  struggle;  it  is  because  the  former 
(at  any  rate  for  the  moment)  have  symbolised  the 
New  Era,  while  the  latter  have  seemed  to  deny, 
with  cruel  cynicism,  the  moral  meaning  of  life. 

If  one  man,  or  a  thousand,  believed  and  preached 
the  Gospel  of  Materialism  it  would  not  be  so  bad. 
The  harm  has  come  because  the  doctrine  that  the 
voice  of  the  howitzer  is  more  mandatory  and 


SOULS  IN  REVOLT  255 

authoritative  than  the  Voice  that  thunders  from 
Mount  Sinai  has  become  institutionalised  in  the 
diplomacy  of  a  State.  It  is  because  the  ruling 
class  of  one  nation  (the  Prussian  junkers)  has 
evidently  repudiated,  with  heartless  scorn,  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

When  Maximilian  Harden,  British  statesmen, 
or  neutral  publicists  say  that  Prussian  militarism 
must  be  stamped  out  before  permanent  peace  can 
be  established  on  enduring  foundations  this  is  what 
is  meant :  The  theory  that  the  State  is  the  ultimate 
form  of  social  evolution  and  that  there  is  no  author- 
ity beyond  the  authority  of  the  sovereign  State, 
must  be  disavowed  and  the  Moral  Law  acknowl- 
edged to  have  an  existence  beyond  and  above  the 
necessities  of  the  nation. 


A  SEA  WALL  OF  DEMOCRACY 


A  SEA  WALL  OF  DEMOCRACY 

A  while  ago  I  visited  Galveston  and  strolled  along  the  prome- 
nade that  tops  its  Sea-Wall.  The  night  inspired  awe  and  won- 
der. It  was  like  a  splendid  maiden,  robed  in  a  garment  of 
raven's  wing,  whose  dress  was  bejewelled  with  stars,  and  on 
whose  head  was  a  orescent  moon.  One  by  one  these  stars  flick- 
ered and  one  by  one  they  went  out.  Then  swiftly  the  scene 
changed.  On  the  western  sky  a  cloud  appeared,  no  larger  than 
a  woman's  hand.  It  grew  and  spread  across  the  heavens.  I 
heard  the  clash  of  thunderous  skies,  the  roar  of  tumultuous 
waves.  I  looked  and  saw,  what  seemed  to  be,  a  hand  that  drew 
from  the  scabbard  of  night  a  red-gold  sword  that  flashed  in  the 
air.  It  was  chained  lightning.  And  then  the  storm  broke  in 
all  its  fury  and  awful  splendour.  The  winds  of  2Eolm  left 
their  caves  to  riot  through  the  world.  I  looked  to  see  on  every 
hand  death  and  destruction;  the  crash  and  ruin  of  the  Day  of 
Doom.  Instead,  the  storm  abated;  the  tide  ebbed;  the  winds 
rested.  The  Master  of  Nature  awoke  and  commanded  the  bois- 
terous waves  to  be  still.  Only  the  skirts  of  the  city  were 
sprinkled  with  the  spray.  Behind  her  mighty  bulwark  Galves- 
ton slept  secure. 

I  stood  and  looked,  -for  I  know  not  how  long,  into  the  starless 
sky.  For  a  while  I  saw  the  changing  clouds,  and  then  I  saw  no 
more.  In  silence  and  reverence  I  waited.  And  then,  on  the 
far  horizon,  I  watched  in  amaze  the  gradual  gathering  of  an  in- 
numerous  host.  They  were  the  children  of  soldiers  slain  in 
ivar.  Their  backs  were  bent  with  arduous  toil  but  in  their 
eyes  was  an  unwonted  light,  a  light  that  never  was  on  sea  or 
land.  They  were  building  a  mightier  sea-wall  than  that  upon 
which  I  stood,  and,  what  seemed  to  me  the  strangest  thing  of 

all,  THEY  WERE  BUILDING  IT  WITH  THEIE  BODIES.      /  looked  again 

and  saw  a  Master-Builder  who  separated  himself  from  the 
countless  crowd  and  spoke  with  a  voice  that  was  as  the  voice 
of  many  waters,  as  the  voice  of  a  great  thunder.  And  what 
he  said  was  that  the  workers  and  the  women  were  gladly  giv- 
ing their  bodies  to  be  the  stones  in  a  new  sea-wall,  the  Sea- 
Wall  of  Democracy.  He  said  that  it  would  be  built  so  high 
and  broad  and  strong  that  when,  twenty-five  years  from  now, 
some  misguided  Princeps,  some  mad  autocrat,  some  militant 
statesman,  shall  once  again  try  to  whip  the  waves  of  popular 
passion  into  a  tempest,  the  sea-wall  of  restraint  and  justice 
and  public  opinion  and  common  conscience  —  the  Sea-Wall  of 
Democracy  —  will  boldly  rise  and  seem  to  say:  "Thus  far  and 
no  farther.  .  .  .  Here  stay  thy  cruel  waves." 

259 


APPENDIX 


ENDORSEMENTS  OF  THE  LEAGUE'S 
PROPOSALS 

THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
(Address  to  the  Senate) 

"  GENTLEMEN  of  the  Senate :  On  the  18th  day  of 
December  last  I  addressed  an  identic  note  to  the 
Governments  of  the  nations  now  at  war  request- 
ing them  to  state,  more  definitely  than  they  had  yet 
been  stated  by  either  group  of  belligerents,  the 
terms  upon  which  they  would  deem  it  possible  to 
make  peace.  I  spoke  on  behalf  of  humanity  and 
of  the  rights  of  all  neutral  nations  like  our  own, 
many  of  whose  most  vital  interests  the  war  puts 
in  constant  jeopardy. 

"The  Central  Powers  united  in  a  reply  which 
stated  merely  that  they  were  ready  to  meet  their 
antagonists  in  conference  to  discuss  terms  of  peace. 

"  The  Entente  Powers  have  replied  much  more 
definitely,  and  have  stated,  in  general  terms,  in- 
deed, but  with  sufficient  definiteness  to  imply  de- 
tails, the  arrangements,  guarantees,  and  acts  of 
reparation  which  they  deem  to  be  the  indispensable 
conditions  of  a  satisfactory  settlement. 

"  We  are  that  much  nearer  a  definite  discussion 

263 


APPENDIX 

of  the  peace  which  shall  end  the  present  war.  We 
are  that  much  nearer  the  discussion  of  the  interna- 
tional concert  which  must  thereafter  hold  the  world 
at  peace.  In  every  discussion  of  the  peace  that 
must  end  this  war  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  that 
I>eace  must  be  followed  by  some  definite  concert  of 
power,  which  will  make  it  virtually  impossible  that 
any  such  catastrophe  should  ever  overwhelm  us 
again.  Every  lover  of  mankind,  every  sane  and 
thoughtful  man,  must  take  that  for  granted. 

"  I  have  sought  this  opportunity  to  address  you 
because  I  thought  that  I  owed  it  to  you,  as  the 
council  associated  with  me  in  the  final  determina- 
tion of  our  international  obligations,  to  disclose 
to  you  without  reserve  the  thought  and  purpose 
that  have  been  taking  form  in  my  mind  in  regard 
to  the  duty  of  our  Government  in  those  days  to 
come  when  it  will  be  necessary  to  lay  afresh  and 
upon  a  new  plan  the  foundations  of  peace  among 
the  nations. 

"  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  people  of  the  United 
States  should  play  no  part  in  that  great  enter- 
prise. To  take  part  in  such  a  service  will  be  the 
opportunity  for  which  they  have  sought  to  prepare 
themselves  by  the  very  principles  and  purposes  of 
their  policy  and  the  approved  practices  of  their 
Government,  ever  since  the  days  when  they  set  up 
a  new  nation  in  the  high  and  honourable  hope  that 
t  might,  in  all  that  it  was  and  did,  show  mankind 
the  way  to  liberty.  They  cannot,  in  honour,  with- 


APPENDIX  265 

hold  the  service  to  which  they  are  now  about  to 
be  challenged.  They  do  not  wish  to  withhold  it. 
But  they  owe  it  to  themselves  and  to  the  other  na- 
tions of  the  world  to  state  the  conditions  under 
which  they  will  feel  free  to  render  it. 

"  That  service  is  nothing  less  than  this  —  to  add 
their  authority  and  their  power  to  the  authority 
and  force  of  other  nations  to  guarantee  peace  and 
justice  throughout  the  world.  Such  a  settlement 
cannot  now  be  long  postponed.  It  is  right  that 
before  it  comes  this  Government  should  frankly 
formulate  the  conditions  upon  which  it  would  feel 
justified  in  asking  our  people  to  approve  its  formal 
and  solemn  adherence  to  a  league  for  peace.  I  am 
here  to  attempt  to  state  those  conditions. 

"  The  present  war  must  first  be  ended,  but  we 
owe  it  to  candour  and  to  a  just  regard  for  the  opin- 
ion of  mankind  to  say  that,  so  far  as  our  participa- 
tion in  guarantees  of  future  peace  is  concerned,  it 
makes  a  great  deal  of  difference  in  what  way  and 
upon  what  terms  it  is  ended.  The  treaties  and 
agreements  which  bring  it  to  an  end  must  embody 
terms  which  will  create  a  peace  that  is  worth  guar- 
anteeing and  preserving,  a  peace  that  will  win  the 
approval  of  mankind,  not  merely  a  peace  that  will 
serve  the  several  interests  and  immediate  aims  of 
the  nations  engaged. 

"We  shall  have  no  voice  in  determining  what 
those  terms  shall  be,  but  we  shall,  I  feel  sure,  have 
a  voice  in  determining  whether  they  shall  be  made 


APPENDIX 

lasting  or  not  by  the  guarantees  of  a  universal  cov- 
enant, and  our  judgment  upon  what  is  fundamental 
and  essential  as  a  condition  precedent  to  perma- 
nency should  be  spoken  now,  not  afterward,  when 
it  may  be  too  late. 

"  No  covenant  of  co-operative  peace  that  does  not 
include  the  peoples  of  the  new  world  can  suffice 
to  keep  the  future  safe  against  war,  and  yet  there 
is  only  one  sort  of  peace  that  the  peoples  of  America 
could  join  in  guaranteeing. 

The  elements  of  that  peace  must  be  elements 
that  engage  the  confidence  and  satisfy  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  American  Governments,  elements  con- 
sistent with  their  political  faith  and  the  practical 
conviction  which  the  peoples  of  America  have  once 
for  all  embraced  and  undertaken  to  defend. 

"  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  any  American  Gov- 
ernment would  throw  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
any  terms  of  peace  the  Governments  now  at  war 
might  agree  upon,  or  seek  to  upset  them  when 
made,  whatever  they  might  be.  I  only  take  it  for 
granted  that  mere  terms  of  peace  between  the  bel- 
ligerents will  not  satisfy  even  the  belligerents  them- 
selves. Mere  agreements  may  not  make  peace  se- 
cure. It  will  be  absolutely  necessary  that  a  force 
be  created  as  a  guarantor  of  the  permanency  of 
the  settlement  so  much  greater  than  the  force  of 
any  nation  now  engaged  or  any  alliance  hitherto 
formed  or  projected,  that  no  nation,  no  probable 
combination  of  nations,  could  face  or  withstand 


APPENDIX  267 

it.  If  the  peace  presently  to  be  made  is  to  endure, 
it  must  be  a  peace  made  secure  by  the  organised 
major  force  of  mankind. 

"  The  terms  of  the  immediate  peace  agreed  upon 
will  determine  whether  it  is  a  peace  for  which  such 
a  guarantee  can  be  secured.  The  question  upon 
which  the  whole  future  peace  and  policy  of  the 
world  depends  is  this: 

"  Is  the  present  war  a  struggle  for  a  just  and 
secure  peace  or  only  for  a  new  balance  of  power? 
If  it  be  only  a  struggle  for  a  new  balance  of  power, 
who  will  guarantee,  who  can  guarantee,  the  stable 
equilibrium  of  the  new  arrangement?  Only  a  tran- 
quil Europe  can  be  a  stable  Europe.  There  must 
be  not  only  a  balance  of  power,  but  a  community 
of  power;  not  organised  rivalries,  but  an  organised 
common  peace. 

"  Fortunately,  we  have  received  very  explicit  as- 
surances on  this  point.  The  statesmen  of  both  of 
the  groups  of  nations,  now  arrayed  against  one 
another,  have  said,  in  terms  that  could  not  be  mis- 
interpreted, that  it  was  no  part  of  the  purpose  they 
had  in  mind  to  crush  their  antagonists.  But  the 
implications  of  these  assurances  may  not  be  equally 
clear  to  all,  may  not  be  the  same  on  both  sides  of 
the  water.  I  think  it  will  be  serviceable  if  I  at- 
tempt to  set  forth  what  we  understand  them  to  be. 

"  They  imply  first  of  all  that  it  must  be  a  peace 
without  victory.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  say  this. 
I  beg  that  I  may  be  permitted  to  put  my  own  in- 


APPENDIX 

terpretation  upon  it  and  that  it  may  be  understood 
that  no  other  interpretation  was  in  my  thought. 
I  am  seeking  only  to  face  realities  and  to  face  them 
without  soft  concealments.  Victory  would  mean 
peace  forced  upon  the  loser,  a  victor's  terms  im- 
posed upon  the  vanquished.  It  would  be  accepted 
in  humiliation  under  duress,  at  an  intolerable 
sacrifice,  and  would  leave  a  sting,  a  resentment,  a 
bitter  memory,  upon  which  terms  of  peace  would 
rest,  not  permanently  but  only  as  upon  quicksand. 

"Only  a  peace  between  equals  can  last;  only  a 
peace  the  very  principle  of  which  is  equality  and  a 
common  participation  in  a  common  benefit.  The 
right  state  of  mind,  the  right  feeling  between  na- 
tions, is  as  necessary  for  a  lasting  peace  as  is  the 
just  settlement  of  vexed  questions  of  territory  or  of 
racial  and  national  allegiance. 

"  The  equality  of  nations  upon  which  peace  must 
be  founded,  if  it  is  to  last,  must  be  an  equality  of 
rights;  the  guarantees  exchanged  must  neither 
recognise  nor  imply  a  difference  between  big  na- 
tions and  small,  between  those  that  are  powerful 
and  those  that  are  weak.  Right  must  be  based 
upon  the  common  strength,  not  upon  the  individual 
strength,  of  the  nations  upon  whose  concert  peace 
will  depend. 

"Equality  of  territory,  of  resources,  there,  of 
course,  cannot  be;  nor  any  other  sort  of  equality 
not  gained  in  the  ordinary  peaceful  and  legitimate 
development  of  the  peoples  themselves.  But  no 


APPENDIX  269 

one  asks  or  expects  anything  more  than  an  equality 
of  rights.  Mankind  is  looking  now  for  freedom 
of  life,  not  for  equipoises  of  power. 

"  And  there  is  a  deeper  thing  involved  than  even 
equality  of  rights  among  organised  nations.  No 
peace  can  last,  or  ought  to  last,  which  does  not 
recognise  and  accept  the  principle  that  Govern- 
ments derive  all  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed,  and  that  no  right  anywhere  exists 
to  hand  peoples  about  from  sovereignty  to  sover- 
eignty as  if  they  were  property. 

"  I  take  it  for  granted,  for  instance,  if  I  may  ven- 
ture upon  a  single  example,  that  statesmen  every- 
where are  agreed  that  there  should  be  a  united, 
independent,  and  autonomous  Poland,  and  that 
henceforth  inviolable  security  of  life,  of  worship, 
and  of  industrial  and  social  development  should  be 
guaranteed  to  all  peoples  who  have  lived  hitherto 
under  the  power  of  Governments  devoted  to  a  faith 
and  purpose  hostile  to  their  own. 

"I  speak  of  this  not  because  of  any  desire  to 
exalt  an  abstract  political  principle  which  has  al- 
ways been  held  very  dear  by  those  who  have  sought 
to  build  up  liberty  in  America,  but  for  the  same 
reason  that  I  have  spoken  of  the  other  conditions 
of  peace,  which  seem  to  me  clearly  indispensable 
—  because  I  wish  frankly  to  uncover  realities. 
Any  peace  which  does  not  recognise  and  accept  this 
principle  will  inevitably  be  upset.  It  will  not  rest 
upon  the  affections  or  the  convictions  of  mankind. 


OTO  APPENDIX 

The  ferment  of  spirit  of  whole  populations  will 
fight  subtly  and  constantly  against  it,  and  all  the 
world  will  sympathise.  The  world  can  be  at  peace 
only  if  its  life  is  stable,  and  there  can  be  no  stabil- 
ity where  the  will  is  in  rebellion,  where  there  is 
not  tranquillity  of  spirit  and  a  sense  of  justice,  of 
freedom,  and  of  right. 

"So  far  as  practicable,  moreover,  every  great 
people  now  struggling  toward  a  full  development 
of  ite  resources  and  of  its  powers  should  be  assured 
a  direct  outlet  to  the  great  highways  of  the  sea. 
Where  this  cannot  be  done  by  the  cession  of  terri- 
tory it  can  no  doubt  be  done  by  the  neutralisation 
of  direct  rights  of  way  under  the  general  guaran- 
tee which  will  assure  the  peace  itself.  With  a 
right  comity  of  arrangement  no  nation  need  be  shut 
away  from  free  access  to  the  open  paths  of  the 
world's  commerce. 

"  And  the  paths  of  the  sjea  must  alike  in  law  and 
in  fact  be  free.  The  freedom  of  the  seas  is  the 
f/ua  non  of  peace,  equality,  and  co-operation. 
No  <loubt  a  somewhat  radical  reconsideration  of 
many  of  the  rules  of  international  practice  hitherto 
sought  to  be  established  may  be  necessary  in  order 
to  make  the  seas  indeed  free  and  common  in  prac- 
tically all  circumstances  for  the  use  of  mankind, 
but  the  motive  for  such  changes  is  convincing  and 
compelling.  There  can  be  no  trust  or  intimacy 
between  the  peoples  of  the  world  without  them. 

"The  free,  constant,  unthreatened  intercourse 


APPENDIX  271 

of  nations  is  an  essential  part  of  the  process  of 
peace  and  of  development.  It  need  not  be  difficult 
to  define  or  to  secure  the  freedom  of  the  seas  if  the 
Governments  of  the  world  sincerely  desire  to  come 
to  an  agreement  concerning  it. 

"  It  is  a  problem  closely  connected  with  the  limi- 
tation of  naval  armaments  and  the  co-operation  of 
the  navies  of  the  world  in  keeping  the  seas  at  once 
free  and  safe. 

"  And  the  question  of  limiting  naval  armaments 
opens  the  wider  and  perhaps  more  difficult  question 
of  the  limitation  of  armies  and  of  all  programmes 
of  military  preparation.  Difficult  and  delicate  as 
these  questions  are,  they  must  be  faced  with  the 
utmost  candour  and  decided  in  a  spirit  of  real  ac- 
commodation if  peace  is  to  come  with  healing  in  its 
wings  and  come  to  stay. 

"Peace  cannot  be  had  without  concession  and 
sacrifice.  There  can  be  no  sense  of  safety  and 
equality  among  the  nations  if  great  preponderating 
armies  are  henceforth  to  continue  here  and  there 
to  be  built  up  and  maintained.  The  statesmen  of 
the  world  must  plan  for  peace  and  nations  must 
adjust  and  accommodate  their  policy  to  it  as  they 
have  planned  for  war  and  made  ready  for  pitiless 
contest  and  rivalry.  The  question  of  armaments, 
whether  on  land  or  sea,  is  the  most  immediately  and 
intensely  practical  question  connected  with  the  fu- 
ture fortunes  of  nations  and  of  mankind. 

"I  have  spoken  upon  these  great  matters  with- 


272  APPENDIX 

out  reserve,  and  with  the  utmost  explicitness  be- 
cause it  has  seemed  to  me  to  be  necessary  if  the 
world's  yearning  desire  for  peace  was  anywhere  to 
find  free  voice  and  utterance.  Perhaps  I  am  the 
only  person  in  high  authority  among  all  the  peo- 
ples of  the  world  who  is  at  liberty  to  speak  and 
hold  nothing  back.  I  am  speaking  as  an  indi- 
vidual, and  yet  I  am  speaking  also,  of  course,  as 
the  responsible  head  of  a  great  Government,  and  I 
feel  confident  that  I  have  said  what  the  people  of 
the  United  States  would  wish  me  to  say. 

"  May  I  not  add  that  I  hope  and  believe  that  I 
am,  in  effect,  speaking  for  liberals  and  friends  of 
humanity  in  every  nation  and  of  every  programme 
of  liberty?  I  would  fain  believe  that  I  am  speak- 
ing for  the  silent  mass  of  mankind  everywhere  who 
have  as  yet  had  no  place  or  opportunity  to  speak 
their  real  hearts  out  concerning  the  death  and  ruin 
they  see  to  have  come  already  upon  the  persons  and 
the  homes  they  hold  most  dear. 

"And  in  holding  out  the  expectation  that  the 
people  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
will  join  the  other  civilised  nations  of  the  world  in 
guaranteeing  the  permanence  of  peace  upon  such 
terms  as  I  have  named,  I  speak  with  the  greater 
boldness  and  confidence  because  it  is  clear  to  every 
man  who  can  think  that  there  is  in  this  promise  no 
breach  in  either  our  traditions  or  our  policy  as  a 
nation,  but  a  fulfilment  rather  of  all  that  we  have 
professed  or  striven  for. 


APPENDIX  273 

"I  am  proposing,  as  it  were,  that  the  nations 
should  with  one  accord  adopt  the  doctrine  of  Presi- 
dent Monroe  as  the  doctrine  of  the  world:  That 
no  nation  should  seek  to  extend  its  policy  over  any 
other  nation  or  people,  but  that  every  people  should 
be  left  free  to  determine  its  own  policy,  its  own 
way  of  development,  unhindered,  unthreatened,  un- 
afraid, the  little  along  with  the  great  and  powerful. 

"  I  am  proposing  that  all  nations  henceforth 
avoid  entangling  alliances  which  would  draw  them 
into  competition  of  power,  catch  them  in  a  net  of 
intrigue  and  selfish  rivalry,  and  disturb  their  own 
affairs  with  influences  intruded  from  without. 
There  is  no  entangling  alliance  in  a  concert  of 
power.  When  all  unite  to  act  in  the  same  sense 
and  with  the  same  purpose,  all  act  in  the  common 
interest  and  are  free  to  live  their  own  lives  under  a 
common  protection. 

"  I  am  proposing  government  by  the  consent  of 
the  governed;  that  freedom  of  the  seas  which  in 
international  conference  after  conference  repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States  have  urged  with  the 
eloquence  of  those  who  are  the  convinced  disciples 
of  liberty ;  and  that  moderation  of  armaments  which 
makes  of  armies  and  navies  a  power  for  order 
merely,  not  an  instrument  of  aggression  or  of  selfish 
violence. 

"  These  are  American  principles,  American  poli- 
cies. We  can  stand  for  no  others.  And  they  are 
also  the  principles  and  policies  of  forward  looking 


L.:4  APPENDIX 

men  and  women  everywhere,  of  every  modern  na 
tion,  of  every  enlightened  community.    They  are 
the  principles  of  mankind  and  must  prevail."- 
Address  of  President  Wilson  to  the  United  States 
Senate,  January  ,U,  1917. 

THE  PRESIDENT'S  IDENTIC  NOTE  TO  THE 

NATIONS  AT  WAR 

"In  the  measures  to  be  taken  to  secure  the  fu- 
ture peace  of  the  world  the  people  and  Government 
of  the  United  States  are  as  vitally  and  as  directly 
interested  as  the  Governments  now  at  war.  Their 
interest,  moreover,  in  the  means  to  be  adopted  to 
relieve  the  smaller  and  weaker  peoples  of  the  world 
of  the  peril  of  wrong  and  violence  is  as  quick  and 
:it  as  that  of  any  other  people  or  Government. 
They  stand  ready,  and  even  eager,  to  co-operate  in 
the  accomplishment  of  these  ends  when  the  war  is 
over  with  every  influence  and  resource  at  their  com- 
mand."—  Dated  Washington,  December  18,  1916. 

THE  REPLY  OF  THE  ALLIES  TO  PRESIDENT 

WILSON'S  NOTE 

"  The  allied  Governments  have  received  the  note 
which  was  delivered  to  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  on  the  19th  of 
December,  1916.  They  have  studied  it  with  the 
care  imposed  upon  them  both  by  the  exact  realisa- 
h  they  have  of  the  gravity  of  the  hour  and 
by  the  sincere  friendship  which  attaches  them  to 


APPENDIX  275 

the  American  people.  In  a  general  way  they  de- 
sire to  declare  their  respect  for  the  lofty  sentiments 
inspiring  the  American  note,  and  their  whole- 
hearted agreement  with  the  proposal  to  create  a 
league  of  nations  which  shall  assure  peace  and  jus- 
tice throughout  the  world.  They  recognise  all  the 
benefits  which  will  accrue  to  the  cause  of  humanity 
and  civilisation  from  the  institution  of  interna- 
tional arrangements  designed  to  prevent  violent 
conflicts  between  nations  and  so  framed  as  to  pro- 
vide the  sanctions  necessary  to  their  enforcement, 
lest  an  illusory  security  shall  serve  merely  to  facili- 
tate fresh  acts  of  aggression." —  Dated  Paris,  Janu- 
ary 10, 1917. 

THE  PRIME  MINISTER  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN, 
MR.   LLOYD-GEORGE 

"  The  world  will  then  be  able,  when  this  war  is 
over,  to  attend  to  its  business  in  peace.  There  will 
be  no  war  or  rumours  of  war  to  disturb  and  to  dis- 
tract. We  can  build  up,  we  can  reconstruct,  we 
can  till,  we  can  cultivate  and  enrich,  and  the  bur- 
den and  terror  and  waste  of  war  will  have  gone. 
The  peace  and  security  for  peace  will  be  that  the 
nations  will  band  themselves  together  to  punish  the 
first  peacebreaker  who  comes  out.  As  to  the  armies 
of  Europe,  every  weapon  will  be  a  sword  of  justice 
in  the  Government  of  men ;  every  arm  will  be  a  con- 
stabulary of  peace." —  Address  at  Guildhall,  Janu- 
ary 11, 1917. 


276  APPENDIX 

THE  PRIME  MINISTER  OF  FRANCE,   M.   BRIAND 

"  The  union  of  all  the  living  forces  of  the  coun- 
try is  an  essential  condition  to  success.  It  is  that 
\vinYh  will  lead  us  to  our  goal  — peace  by  victory 
—  a  solid,  lasting  peace  guaranteed  against  any 
return  of  violence  by  appropriate  international 
measures." 

THE  IMPERIAL  CHANCELLOR  OF  GERMANY, 
DR.   VON  BETHMANN-HOLLWEG 

"  Lord  Grey  finally  dealt  exhaustively  with  the 
period  after  peace  and  with  the  establishment  of 
an  international  union  to  preserve  peace.  On  that 
subject,  too,  I  will  say  a  few  words.  We  never 
concealed  our  doubts  whether  peace  could  be  last- 
ingly insured  by  international  organisations  such 
as  arbitration  courts.  I  will  not  discuss  here  the 
theoretical  part  of  the  problem,  but  in  practice 
now  and  in  peace  we  shall  have  to  define  our  atti- 
tude toward  the  question. 

"  When,  after  the  termination  of  the  war,  the 
\\Mi-ld  shall  fully  recognise  its  horrible  devastation 
of  blood  and  treasure,  then  through  all  mankind 
will  go  the  cry  for  peaceful  agreements  and  under- 
standings which  will  prevent,  so  far  as  is  humanly 
possible,  the  return  of  such  an  immense  catastro- 
phe. This  cry  will  be  so  strong  and  so  justified 
that  it  must  lead  to  a  result.  Germany  will  hon- 
ourably co-operate  in  investigating  every  attempt  to 


APPENDIX  277 

find  a  practical  solution,  and  collaborate  toward 
its  possible  realisation,  and  that  all  the  more  if  the 
war,  as  we  confidently  expect,  produces  political 
conditions  which  will  do  justice  to  the  free  develop- 
ment of  all  nations,  small  as  well  as  great.  In  that 
case  the  principle  of  right  and  free  development 
must  be  made  to  prevail,  not  only  on  the  Continent, 
but  also  at  sea.  . 

"Of  that  Lord  Grey,  of  course,  did  not  speak, 
The  guarantee  of  peace  which  he  has  in  mind  ap- 
pears to  me  to  possess  a  peculiar  character,  de- 
vised especially  for  British  wishes.  During  the 
war  the  neutrals,  according  to  his  desire,  will  have 
to  remain  silent  and  patiently  endure  every  com- 
pulsion of  British  domination  on  the  seas.  After 
the  war,  when  England  as  she  thinks,  will  have 
beaten  us,  when  she  will  have  made  a  new  arrange- 
ment of  the  world,  then  neutrals  are  to  combine  as 
guarantors  of  the  new  English  arrangement  of  the 
world, 

"  Such  a  policy  of  force  cannot,  of  course,  form 
the  basis  for  an  effective  international  peace  union, 
and  it  is  in  the  strongest  contrast  to  Lord  Grey's 
and  Mr.  Asquith's  ideal  state  of  things,  where  right 
governs  might  and  all  States  form  a  family  of  civil- 
ised mankind,  and  can  freely  develop  themselves, 
whether  big  or  small,  under  the  same  conditions 
and  in  accordance  with  their  natural  capabilities. 
If  the  Entente  wishes  seriously  to  take  up  this  po- 
sition, then  it  should  also  act  consistently  upon 


APPENDIX 

it ;  otherwise  the  most  exalted  words  about  peace 
union  and  harmonious  living  together  in  an  inter- 
national family  are  mere  words."—  Speech  of  No- 
vember 9  before  the  Chief  Committee  of  the  Reich- 
stag. 

THE  HUNGARIAN  PRIME   MINISTER, 
COUNT  TISZA 

"Pursuant  to  our  peaceful  policy  before  the 
war  and  our  attitude  during  the  war,  as  well  as  our 
recent  peace  action,  we  can  only  greet  with  sym- 
pathy every  effort  aiming  at  the  restoration  of 
peace.  .  .  .  Only  that  limited  realisation  of  the 
principle  of  nationalities  is  possible  which  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States  rightly  expresses  in  de- 
manding that  security  of  life  and  religion  and 
individual  and  social  development  should  be  guar- 
anteed to  all  peoples.  .  .  .  We  feel  ourselves  there- 
fore completely  in  agreement  with  the  President's 
demands.  We  shall  strive  for  the  realisation  as  far 
as  possible  of  this  principle  in  the  regions  lying  in 
our  immediate  neighbourhood.  I  can  only  repeat 
that,  true  to  our  traditional  foreign  policy  and  true 
to  the  standpoint  we  took  in  our  peace  action,  in 
conjunction  with  our  allies  we  are  ready  to  do 
everything  that  will  guarantee  to  the  peoples  of  Eu- 
rope the  blessings  of  a  lasting  peace." — Reply  to 
question  by  member  of  Opposition  Party  in  Parlia- 
ment, January  2Jf,  1917. 


APPENDIX  279 

THE  BRITISH  FOREIGN   MINISTER,   MR.   BALFOUR 

"  I  gather  from  the  general  tenor  of  the  Presi- 
dent's note  that,  while  he  is  animated  by  an  intense 
desire  that  peace  should  come  soon  and  that  when 
it  comes  it  should  be  lasting,  he  does  not,  for  the 
moment  at  least,  concern  himself  with  the  terms 
on  which  it  should  be  arranged.  His  Majesty's 
Government  entirely  share  the  President's  ideas; 
but  they  feel  strongly  that  the  durability  of  peace 
must  largely  depend  on  its  character  and  that  no 
stable  system  of  international  relations  can  be  built 
on  foundations  which  are  essentially  and  hopelessly 
defective.  .  .  .  There  are  those  who  think  that  for 
this  disease  international  treaties  and  international 
laws  may  provide  a  sufficient  cure.  ,  But  such  per- 
sons have  ill  learned  the  lessons  so  clearly  taught 
by  recent  history.  .  .  .  Though,  therefore,  the  peo- 
ple of  this  country  share  to  the  full  the  desire  of 
the  President  for  peace,  they  do  not  believe  peace 
can  be  durable  if  it  be  not  based  on  the  success  of 
the  allied  cause.  For  a  durable  peace  can  hardly 
be  expected  unless  three  conditions  are  fulfilled: 
The  first  is  that  existing  causes  of  international 
unrest  should  be  as  far  as  possible  removed  or 
weakened;  the  second  is  that  the  aggressive  aims 
and  the  unscrupulous  methods  of  the  Central  Pow- 
ers should  fall  into  disrepute  among  their  own  peo- 
ples ;  the  third  is  that  behind  international  law  and 
behind  all  treaty  arrangements  for  preventing  or 


APPENDIX 

limiting  hostilities  some  form  of  international 
sanction  should  be  devised  which  would  give  pause 
to  the  hardiest  aggressor." — Arthur  James  Balfour 

'•II  ^/.ring-Rice,  January  13, 1917. 
••  \Vhen  this  tremendous  war  is  brought  to  an 
end,  how  is  civilised  mankind  so  to  reorganise  itself 
that  similar  catastrophes  shall  not  be  permitted 
to  recur?  Law  is  not  enough.  Behind  law  there 
must  be  power.  It  is  good  that  arbitration  should 
be  encouraged.  ...  It  is  good  that  before  peace  is 
broken  the  would-be  belligerents  should  be  com- 
pelled to  discuss  their  differences  in  some  congress 
of  the  nations.  It  is  good  that  the  security  of  the 
smaller  States  should  be  fenced  round  with  pecu- 
liar care.  But  all  these  precautions  are  mere 
scraps  of  paper  unless  they  can  be  enforced.  We 
delude  ourselves  if  we  think  we  are  doing  God  serv- 
ice merely  by  passing  good  resolutions.  What  is 
needed  now,  and  will  be  needed  so  long  as  mili- 
tarism is  unconquered,  is  the  machinery  for  enforc- 
ing them,  and  the  contrivance  of  such  a  machinery 
will  tax  to  its  utmost  the  statesmanship  of  the 
world."'  'itement  ly  Mr.  Balfour  on  May  19, 
1916.  He  was  then  First  Lord  of  the  British  Ad- 
miralty. 

THE  BRITISH  CHANCELLOR  OF  THE  EXCHEQUER, 
MR.   BONAR  LAW 

"  President  Wilson's  speech  [before  the  Senate] 
had   thia  aim  —  to  gain   peace   now   and   secure 


APPENDIX  281 

peace  for  the  future.  That  is  our  aim,  and  our 
only  aim.  He  hoped  to  secure  this  by  a  league  of 
peace,  and  he  not  only  spoke  in  favour  of  such  a 
league  but  he  is  trying  to  induce  the  American 
Senate  to  take  the  steps  necessary  to  give  effect 
to  it.  It  would  not  be  right  to  regard  this  pro- 
posal as  something  altogether  Utopian.  You  know 
that  almost  up  to  our  own  day  duelling  continued, 
and  just  as  the  settling  of  private  disputes  by  the 
sword  has  now  become  unthinkable,  so,  I  think,  we 
may  hope  that  the  time  will  come  when  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  world  will  play  the  part  which  Crom- 
well described  as  his  life  work  —  to  act  as  con- 
stable and  keep  peace.  That  time  will  come,  I 
hope.  .  .  . 

"  Our  aim  is  the  same  as  President  Wilson's. 
What  he  is  longing  for  we  are  fighting  for,  our  sons 
and  brothers  are  risking  their  lives  for,  and  we 
mean  to  secure  it.  The  hearts  of  the  people  of  this 
country  are  longing  for  peace.  We  are  praying 
for  peace,  for  a  peace  which  will  bring  back  to  us 
in  safety  those  who  are  fighting  our  battles,  and  a 
peace  which  will  mean  that  those  who  will  not  come 
back  have  not  laid  down  their  lives  in  vain." — Ad- 
dress on  January  24, 1917. 

THE  LORD  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  BRITISH  WAR 
COUNCIL,   EARL  CURZON 

"  They  would  be  surprised  if  when  the  war  was 
over  the  better  judgment  of  mankind  did  not  rally 


APPENDIX 

in  force  and  say  that  these  abominations  must  not 
be  again  in  the  world.  Mankind  must  be  saved 
from  the  peril  of  its  own  passion.  Machinery  must 
be  devised  to  prevent  the  reign  of  brute  force  in  the 
world. "—Statement  made  on  May  16, 1916,  as  pre- 
siding chairman  of  the  Atlantic  Union. 

THE  FOREIGN  OFFICE  OF  THE  RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT 

«  Russia  has  always  been  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  broad  humanitarian  principles  expressed  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  His  message  to 
the  Senate,  therefore,  has  made  a  most  favourable 
impression  upon  the  Russian  Government.  Russia 
will  welcome  all  suitable  measures  which  will  help 
prevent  a  recurrence  of  the  world  war.  Accord- 
ingly we  can  gladly  indorse  President  Wilson's 
communication.  President  Wilson's  views  on  free 
access  to  the  seas  find  an  advocate  in  Russia,  be- 
cause she  considers  it  necessary  to  have  free  access 
to  the  seas.  The  President's  proposal  regarding 
limited  armament  has  the  support  of  Russia,  who 
made  representations  of  this  nature  at  The  Hague 
« mferences.  In  expressing  these  convictions,  the 
President  of  the  United  States  is,  at  the  same  time, 
expressing  the  point  of  view  of  Russia.  .  .  .  Rus- 
sia already  has  definitely  announced  her  unalter- 
able determination  regarding  the  future  of  Poland. 
The  Russian  Emperor  has  declared  one  of  the  ob- 
jects of  the  war  is  a  free  Poland,  consisting  now  of 


APPENDIX  283 

three  separated  provinces.  As  to  the  nature  of  the 
peace  to  be  concluded,  whether  it  be  a  peace  with- 
out victory  or  not,  one  should  remember  that  it 
never  has  been  the  aim  of  the  Allies  to  crush  their 
enemies  and  that  they  have  never  insisted  upon  vic- 
tory in  that  sense  over  Germany.  It  is  Germany 
who  has  taken  that  point  of  view  and  wishes  to  dic- 
tate peace  as  a  victor." —  Statement  to  Associated 
Press,  January  26, 1917. 

THE  GERMAN  FOREIGN  SECRETARY, 
MR.   ZIMMERMANN 

"  In  the  message  which  President  Wilson  ad- 
dressed to  the  Senate,  the  Imperial  German  Govern- 
ment recognises  with  extreme  satisfaction  the  fact 
that  the  aspirations  and  thoughts  of  the  President 
continue  to  occupy  themselves  with  the  question 
of  restoration  of  permanent  peace.  The  exalted 
moral  earnestness  which  collects  itself  in  the  words 
of  the  President  insures  them  of  an  attentive  ear 
throughout  the  world.  The  Imperial  German  Gov- 
ernment earnestly  hopes  that  the  untiring  efforts 
of  the  President  to  restore  peace  on  earth  may  be 
crowned  with  success." —  Interview  with  Wm.  Bay- 
ard Hale,  January  2 If,  1917. 

THE  FORMER  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 
MR.   WILLIAM   HOWARD  TAFT 

"  Even  if  the  risk  of  war  to  the  United  States 
would  be  greater  by  entering  a  League  to  Enforce 


APPENDIX 

Peace  than  by  staying  out  of  it,  does  not  the  United 
States  have  a  duty  as  a  member  of  the  family  of 
nations  to  do  its  part  and  run  its  necessary  risk 
to  make  less  probable  the  coming  of  such  another 
war  and  such  another  disaster  to  the  American 
i-.icc?  \Ve  are  the  richest  nation  in  the  world  and 
in  the  sense  of  what  we  could  do  were  we  to  make 
reasonable  preparation,  we  are  the  most  powerful 
nation  in  the  world.  We  have  been  showered  with 
good  fortune.  Our  people  have  enjoyed  a  happi- 
ness known  to  no  other  people.  Does  not  this  im- 
pose upon  us  a  sacred  duty  to  join  the  other  nations 
of  the  world  in  a  fraternal  spirit  and  with  a  willing- 
ness to  make  sacrifice  if  we  can  promote  the  general 
welfare  of  men?  At  the  close  of  this  war  the  gov- 
ernments and  the  people  of  the  belligerent  coun- 
tries, under  the  enormous  burdens  and  suffering 
from  the  great  losses  of  the  war,  will  be  in  a  con- 
<liti<»n  of  mind  to  accept  and  promote  such  a  plan 
for  the  enforcement  of  future  peace." 

THE  FORMER  BRITISH  PRIME  MINISTER, 
MR.  ASQUITH 

"  It  means  [the  war],  finally,  or  it  ought  to  mean, 
perhaps  by  a  slow  and  gradual  process,  the  sub- 
stinition  for  force,  for  the  clash  of  competing  am- 
bitions,  for  groupings  and  alliances  and  a  precari- 
ous equipoise,  the  substitution  for  all  these  things 
of  a  real  European  partnership,  based  on  the  recog- 
nition of  equal  right  and  established  and  enforced 


APPENDIX  285 

by  a  common  will.  A  year  ago  that  would  have 
sounded  like  a  Utopian  idea.  It  is  probably  one 
that  may  not,  or  will  not,  be  realised  either  to-day 
or  to-morrow.  If  and  when  this  war  is  decided  in 
favour  of  the  Allies,  it  will  at  once  come  within 
the  range,  and  before  long  within  the  grasp,  of 
European  statesmanship." —  Speech  at  Dublin,  Sep- 
tember 25, 1914. 

In  a  speech  at  Queen's  Hall,  London,  delivered 
on  the  occasion  of  the  second  anniversary  of  the  dec- 
laration of  war,  August  4,  1916,  Mr.  Asquith  said : 
"  Early  in  the  war  I  quoted  a  sentence  which 
Mr.  Gladstone  used  in  1870.  *  The  greatest  tri- 
umph of  our  time/  he  said,  '  has  been  the  enthrone- 
ment of  the  idea  of  public  right  as  the  governing 
idea  of  European  policies/  Mr.  Gladstone  worked 
all  his  life  for  that  noble  purpose.  He  did  not  live 
to  see  its  attainment.  By  the  victory  of  the  Allies, 
the  enthronement  of  public  right  here  in  Europe 
will  pass  from  the  domain  of  ideals  and  of  aspira- 
tions into  that  of  concrete  and  achieved  realities. 
What  does  public  right  mean?  I  will  tell  you 
what  I  understand  it  to  mean  —  an  equal  level  of 
opportunity  and  of  independence  as  between  small 
States  and  great  States,  as  between  the  weak  and 
the  strong;  safeguards  resting  upon  the  common 
will  of  Europe,  and,  I  hope,  not  of  Europe  alone, 
against  aggression,  against  international  covetous- 
ness  and  bad  faith,  against  the  wanton  recourse  in 
case  of  dispute  to  the  use  of  force  and  the  dis- 


APPENDIX 

turbance  of  peace;  finally,  as  the  result  of  it  all, 
a  great  partnership  of  nations  federated  together 
in  the  joint  pursuit  of  a  freer  and  fuller  life  for 
countless  millions  who  by  their  efforts  and  their 
sacrifice,  generation  after  generation,  maintain  the 
progress  and  enrich  the  inheritance  of  humanity." 
ported  in  the  London  Times  for  August  11, 
1916. 

THE  FORMER  UNITED  STATES  SECRETARY 
OP  STATE,  MR.   ROOT 

"  I  heartily  agree  with  the  purpose  and  general 
principle  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  It  seems 
clear  to  me  that  if  we  are  ever  to  get  away  from  the 
necessity  for  great  armaments  and  special  alliances, 
with  continually  recurring  wars,  growing  more  and 
more  destructive,  it  must  be  by  a  more  systematic 
treatment  of  international  disputes  brought  about 
by  common  agreement  among  civilised  nations. 
It  seems  to  me  that  any  such  system  must  include 
the  better  formulation  of  international  law,  the 
establishment  of  an  international  court  to  apply 
the  law,  and  a  general  agreement  to  enforce  sub- 
mission to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  I  also 
think  the  Court  of  Conciliation  for  dealing  with 
questions  which  are  not  justiciable  is  very  desir- 
able."- -  Letter  to  Dr.  A.  Lawrence  Lowell  dated 
February  10, 1916. 


APPENDIX  287 

THE  FORMER  BRITISH  FOREIGN  SECRETARY, 
LORD  GREY 

"  I  believe  the  best  work  neutrals  can  do  is  to 
prevent  a  war  like  this  ever  happening  again.  .  .  . 
Nations  fighting  for  their  existence  with  daily  in- 
creasing prospects  of  seeing  victory  nearer,  still 
knowing  that  if  they  stop  short  of  victory  they  stop 
short  of  everything  for  which  they  are  struggling, 
cannot  be  expected  to  spend  much  time  thinking 
about  what  might  happen  after  victory  is  secured. 
But  the  neutrals  can  do  it.  I  observe  that  not  only 
President  Wilson,  but  Mr.  Hughes,  is  supporting 
a  league  [The  League  to  Enforce  Peace]  started, 
not  with  the  object  of  interfering  with  the  belliger- 
ents in  this  war,  but  which  will  do  its  part  in  mak- 
ing peace  secure  in  the  future.  It  is  a  work  of  neu- 
tral countries  to  which  we  should  all  look  with  fa- 
vour and  hope.  Only,  we  must  bear  this  in  mind : 
If  the  nations,  after  the  war,  are  able  to  do  some- 
thing effective  by  binding  themselves  with  the  com- 
mon object  of  preserving  peace,  they  must  be  pre- 
pared to  undertake  no  more  than  they  are  able  to 
uphold  by  force,  and  to  see,  when  the  time  of  crisis 
comes,  that  it  is  upheld  by  force.  The  question 
which  we  must  ask  them  is  this :  '  Will  you  play 
up  when  the  time  comes  ?'  It  is  not  merely  the 
sign  manual  of  Presidents  and  sovereigns  that  is 
really  to  make  that  worth-while;  this  must  also 
have  behind  it  parliaments  and  national  sentiments. 


APPENDIX 

Supposing  the  conditions  of  1914  occur  again,  and 
there  is  such  a  league  in  existence,  everything  will 
depend  upon  whether  national  sentiment  behind  it 
is  so  permeated  by  the  lessons  of  this  war  as  to 
compel  each  nation,  as  a  matter  of  vital  interest,  to 
keep  peace  other  than  by  vital  force." —  Speech  be- 
fore the  Foreign  Press  Association  of  London  on 
October  23,  1916. 

"I  sincerely  desire  to  see  a  league  of  nations 
formed  and  made  effective  to  secure  future  peace 
of  the  world  after  this  war  is  over.  I  regard  this 
as  the  best  if  not  the  only  prospect  of  preserving 
treaties  and  of  saving  the  world  from  aggressive 
wars  in  years  to  come  and  if  there  is  any  doubt 
about  my  sentiments  in  the  matter  I  hope  this 
telegram  will  remove  it." —  Cablegram  from  Lord 
Grey  read  at  New  York  Banquet  of  League  to  En- 
force Peace,  November  24, 1916. 

THE  FORMER  AMBASSADOR  TO  THE  UNITED  STATES, 
VISCOUNT  BRYCE 

"  Is  there  anything  further  that  the  friends  of 
justice  and  humanity  in  Europe  can  expect  from 
beyond  the  Atlantic,  since  it  is  not  now  likely  that 
the  armed  aid  which  would  do  so  much  to  shorten 
the  war  will  be  forthcoming?  Many  of  us  here  in 
Britain  have  been  anxiously  considering  what  can 
be  done  after  the  war  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of 
such  sufferings  and  calamities  as  we  have  been 
<*88ing.  There  are  those  among  us  who  have 


APPENDIX  289 

framed  schemes  for  the  creation  of  some  interna- 
tional machinery  for  that  purpose,  some  league  of 
peace-loving  nations  to  secure  the  amicable  settle- 
ment of  disputes  and  restrain  any  Power  which 
may  hereafter  be  impelled  by  passion  or  selfishness 
to  attack  its  neighbours.  We  have  thought  it  best 
not  to  give  publicity  to  these  schemes  so  long  as  the 
national  mind  is  so  much  absorbed  with  the  conduct 
of  the  war  as  to  be  unable  to  give  due  consideration 
to  them.  Now,  however,  when  victory  seems  to  be 
coming  into  sight,  and  when  we  know  that  both 
we  and  our  Allies  are  absolutely  united  in  our  re- 
solve to  prosecute  it  till  that  victory  is  complete, 
the  reasons  for  reserve  may  soon  disappear.  In 
America,  where  those  reasons  do  not  exist,  much 
has  already  been  done.  A  league  for  the  promotion 
of  a  permanent  peace  has  been  formed,  including 
many  weighty  and  distinguished  names  (with  ex- 
President  Taft  for  its  president),  which  has  formu- 
lated a  plan  for  the  establishment  of  such  a  perma- 
nent international  machinery  as  I  have  mentioned, 
and  which  proposes  that  the  United  States  should 
render  to  this  worthy  cause  the  immense  service  of 
taking  part  in  the  scheme.  The  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  such  American  participation  has,  of  course, 
hitherto  lain  in  that  policy  of  complete  isolation 
from  Old  World  affairs  which  the  United  States 
has  hitherto  followed.  But  now  two  events  of  cap- 
ital significance  have  happened." 

At  this  point  he  quotes  two  pertinent  passages, 


290  APPENDIX 

one  from  President  Wilson's  speech  at  the  first  an- 
nual meeting  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  and 
the  other  from  Mr.  Hughes'  speech  accepting  the 
Republican  nomination.  Resuming  his  article,  he 
concludes  with  the  pregnant  words:  "The  crea- 
tion of  some  international  alliance  embracing  all 
the  peace-loving  nations  could  hardly  succeed  with- 
out the  co-operation  of  the  greatest  of  all  neutral 
nations.  With  that  co-operation,  difficult  as  the 
effort  to  construct  such  a  scheme  will  be,  there  is 
at  least  a  real  hope  of  success.  Largely  in  vain 
will  this  war  have  been  fought  and  all  these  suffer- 
ings endured  if  the  peoples  of  the  world  are  to  fall 
back  into  a  state  of  permanent  alarm,  suspicion, 
and  hostility,  each  weighed  down  by  the  frightful 
burden  of  armaments.  Let  us  hope  that  the  prof- 
fered help  of  America  will  encourage  the  statesmen 
of  Europe  and  draw  from  them  a  responsive  note/' 
He  adds,  that  "  if  the  opportunity  which  the  close 
of  the  present  conflict  will  offer  for  the  provision 
of  means  to  avert  future  wars  be  lost,  another  such 
may  never  reappear,  and  the  condition  of  the  world 
will  have  grown  worse,  because  the  recurrence  of 
like  calamities  will  have  been  recognised  as  a  thing 
to  be  expected,  and  their  causes  as  beyond  all  hu- 
man cure." — Article  in  the  American  edition  of  the 
Manchester  Guardian  for  October  3, 1916,  on  "  The 
'd  States  During  and  After  the  War." 


APPENDIX  291 

THE  PLATFORMS  OF  THE  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

The  two  leading  political  parties  in  the  United 
States  have  both  endorsed  the  idea  of  the  League 
in  their  official  platforms.  The  plank  in  the  Demo- 
cratic platform  for  1916  reads  as  follows :  "  The 
circumstances  of  the  last  two  years  have  revealed 
necessities  of  international  action  which  no  former 
generation  could  have  foreseen.  We  hold  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  use  its  power, 
not  only  to  make  itself  safe  at  home,  but  also  to 
make  secure  its  just  interests  throughout  the  world ; 
and,  both  for  this  end  and  in  the  interest  of  hu- 
manity, to  assist  the  world  in  securing  settled  peace 
and  justice.  We  believe  .  .  .  that  the  world  has 
a  right  to  be  free  from  every  disturbance  of  its 
peace  that  has  its  origin  in  aggression  or  disregard 
of  the  rights  of  peoples  and  nations ;  and  we  believe 
that  the  time  has  come  when  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  join  with  the  other  nations  of  the 
world  in  any  feasible  association  that  will  effect- 
ively serve  those  principles,  to  maintain  inviolate 
the  complete  security  of  the  highway  of  the  seas 
for  the  common  and  unhindered  use  of  all  nations." 

The  Republican  platform  says :  R  We  believe  in 
the  pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes 
and  favour  the  establishment  of  a  world  court  for 
that  purpose." 


APPENDIX 


THE  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES 

In  November,  1915,  the  Board  of  Directors  of 
the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States 
(which  has  a  membership  of  350,000),  sent  out  a 
referendum  on  the  subject  of  the  several  proposals 
of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  e.g.  : 

I.  The  Committee  recommends  action  to  secure 
conferences  among  neutral  countries,  on  the  initi- 
ative of  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
lining  and  enunciating  rules  which  will  at  all  times 
give  due  protection  to  life  and  property  upon  the 
high  seas. 

1  1.  The  Committee  recommends  that  for  the  de- 
cision of  questions  which  arise  between  nations  and 
which  can  be  resolved  upon  the  application  of  es- 
tablished rules  or  upon  a  determination  of  facts 
the  United  States  should  take  the  initiative  in  join- 
ing with  other  nations  in  establishing  an  Inter- 
national Court. 

III.  The  Committee  recommends  that  for  con- 
sideration of  questions  which  arise  between  nations 
and  which  do  not  depend  upon  established  rules  or 
upon  facts  which  can  be  determined  by  an  Inter- 
national Court  the  United  States  should  take  the 
initiative  in  joining  with  other  nations  in  establish- 
ing a  Council  of  Conciliation. 

IV.  The     Committee     recommends     that     the 
United  States  should  take  the  initiative  in  joining 


APPENDIX  293 

with  other  nations  in  agreeing  to  bring  concerted 
economic  pressure  to  bear  upon  any  nation  or  na- 
tions which  resort  *to  military  measures  without 
submitting  their  differences  to  an  International 
Court  or  a  Council  of  Conciliation,  and  awaiting 
the  decision  of  the  Court  or  the  recommendation 
of  the  Council,  as  circumstances  make  the  more  ap- 
propriate. 

V.  The  Committee  recommends  that  the  United 
States  take  the  initiative  in  joining  with  other 
countries  in   agreeing  to  use  concerted  military 
force  in  the  event  that  concerted  economic  pressure 
exercised  by  the  signatory  nations  is  not  sufficient 
to  compel  nations  which  have  proceeded  to  war  to 
desist  from  military  operations  and  submit  the  ques- 
tions at  issue  to  an  International  Court  or  a  Coun- 
cil of  Conciliation,  as  circumstances  make  the  more 
appropriate. 

VI.  The     Committee     recommends     that     the 
United  States  should  take  the  initiative  in  estab- 
lishing the  principle  of  frequent  international  con- 
ferences at  expressly  stated  intervals  for  the  pro- 
gressive amendment  of  international  law. 

In  response,  over  96  per  cent,  of  the  vote  was  in 
favour  of  the  proposition  that  the  United  States 
take  the  initiative  in  securing  periodic  international 
conferences  for  the  purpose  of  codifying  interna- 
tional law  to  meet  new  and  changed  conditions.  A 
majority  of  more  than  two-thirds  voted  to  approve 
of  the  proposition  that  this  country  take  the  in- 


o«i  i  APPENDIX 

itiative  in  forming  a  league  of  nations  under  a 
treaty  agreeing  to  submit  justiciable  questions  aris- 
ing between  any  of  its  members  to  an  international 
court,  and  non- justiciable  questions  to  a  council 
of  conciliation  for  their  respective  decision  or  rec- 
ommendation, before  resorting  to  war.  The  vote 
in  favour  of  the  third  proposal  of  the  League 
amounted  to  a  very  considerable  majority  of  the 
total  membership,  though  a  little  short  of  the  two- 
thirds  necessary  for  official  endorsement. 

THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  AMERICAN   FEDERATION 
OF  LABOUR,   MR.   SAMUEL  GOMPERS 

"  Above  and  beyond  the  desire  of  America's  work- 
ers to  secure  a  settlement  that  will  safeguard  the 
material  interests  of  themselves  and  the  nation  is 
their  desire  to  see  a  settlement  that  will  render 
war  less  probable  and  peace  more  permanent  in  the 
future;  for  the  interests  of  the  men  and  women 
of  labour  are  identified  with  those  of  peace.  War 
has  always  meant  to  them  sacrifice  and  suffering 
and  the  bearing  of  heavy  burdens  after  the  war. 
Working  people  have  bought  with  their  flesh  and 
blood  the  right  to  a  voice  in  determining  the  issues 
of  peace  and  war;  and  in  the  general  reorganisa- 
tion that  will  follow  the  present  war,  the  workers 
will  insist  upon  having  voice  and  influence.  .  .  . 
In  any  programme  looking  toward  the  establish- 
ment of  more  permanent  peace  among  nations,  la- 
bour will  insist  upon  the  following  principles: 


APPENDIX  295 

"  1.  It  must  be  a  programme  under  which  the 
military  forces  of  the  world  will  be  rescued  from  the 
dictation  of  arbitrary  autocracy  and  secret  diplo- 
macy and  dedicated  to  the  maintenance  of  a  higher 
standard  of  morals,  law  and  justice. 

"2.  It  must  be  a  programme  elastic  enough  to 
admit  of  those  fundamental  changes  that  the  grow- 
ing life  of  the  world  makes  inevitable. 

"3.  It  must  be  a  programme  under  which  the 
small  nation,  as  well  as  the  large  nation,  will  have 
a  free  hand  in  every  just  and  individual  develop- 
ment ;  a  programme  that  will  make  it  impossible  for 
a  few  strong  nations  to  dictate  the  policies  and  de- 
velopment of  the  world. 

"4.  It  must  be  a  programme  that  will  give  the 
masses  preater  influence  in  those  decisions  that 
plunge  nations  into  war. 

"5.  It  must  be  a  programme  under  which  the 
international  machinery  that  is  created  will  afford 
a  medium  through  which  all  classes  of  society 
can  voice  their  judgment  and  register  their  de- 
mands. .  .  . 

"  Insofar  as  the  programme  of  the  League  to  En- 
force Peace  represents  an  effort  to  meet  the  con- 
ditions I  have  outlined,  it  demands  the  interest  and 
careful  scrutiny  of  every  man  who  has  the  inter- 
ests of  labour  at  heart.  ...  Evidence  is  daily  ac- 
cumulating that  some  such  a  League  of  Nations  is 
practically  certain  to  be  formed,  if  not  at  the  end 
of  this  war,  in  the  not  far  distant  future.  The 


APPENDIX 

bitter  experience  of  this  war  will  prove  to  all  na- 
tions that  the  system  of  small  group  alliances, 
armed  to  the  teeth  and  eternally  growling  at  each 
other,  is  a  poor  way  to  run  the  business  of  the 
world.  Since  such  a  Court  or  League  as  contem- 
plated appears  to  be  the  inevitable  goal  toward 
which  the  whole  evolution  of  law  and  government  is 
tending,  the  labouring  men  of  this  and  every  other 
nation  will  feel  it  their  duty  and  privilege  to  lift 
their  voice  in  counsel  at  every  step  of  the  plans  and 
propaganda,  in  order  to  make  more  certain  the  tri- 
umph of  democratic  principles  and  methods  in 
whatever  final  form  such  an  international  institu- 
tion may  take." 

THE  SOCIALIST  GROUP  IN  THE  FRENCH 
PARLIAMENT 

"  The  Socialist  group  in  the  French  Parliament 
takes  note  with  joy  of  the  admirable  message  of 
President  Wilson  to  the  American  Senate.  The 
conception  of  peace  founded  upon  the  free  will  of 
peoples,  and  not  upon  force  of  arms,  should  be  or 
should  become  the  charter  of  the  civilised  universe. 
Upon  this  affirmation  of  justice,  an  inheritance 
from  our  revolutionary  traditions  and  of  our  inter- 
national congresses,  President  Wilson  confers  to- 
day a  new  and  immense  prestige.  And  it  is  the 
more  necessary  at  this  time  that  democrats  of  all 
nations,  wherever  they  may  be,  should  rise  against 
Imperialistic  ambitions  and  against  their  bloody 


APPENDIX  297 

and  ruinous  consequences.  The  Socialist  group 
will  request  insistently  that  the  French  Govern- 
ment affirm  clearly  its  accord  with  the  high  words 
of  reason  of  President  Wilson.  To  prepare  and 
hasten  an  early  and  just  ending  of  the  present  war 
and  to  assure  a  future  of  peaceful  civilisation,  the 
Socialist  group  asks  the  representatives  of  all  bel- 
ligerent nations  to  press  upon  their  leaders  a  trial 
in  good  faith  of  the  noble  experiment  offered  to 
humanity  by  the  head  of  the  great  American  Re- 
public."—  Resolution  Unanimously  Adopted  by 
the  Eighty-nine  Socialist  Deputies,  January  26, 
1917. 

THE  BRITISH  LABOUR  CONFERENCE 

"  Kesolved  that  all  the  British  representatives 
at  the  peace  conference  should  work  for  the  forma- 
tion of  an  international  league  to  enforce  the 
maintenance  of  peace  on  the  plan  advocated  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  approved  by  the 
British  Foreign  Secretary." — Resolution  Unani- 
mously Adopted  at  Manchester,  January  27, 1917. 

THE  PRESIDENT  OF  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY, 
DR.   A.   LAWRENCE  LOWELL 

"  A  breach  of  the  world's  peace,  like  a  breach  of 
domestic  peace,  is  an  offence  against  public  order 
which  the  public  ought  to  have  some  right  to  pre- 
vent. Nations  that  go  to  war  break  the  peace  of 
the  world,  and  the  world  has  at  least  a  right  to 


APPENDIX 

insist  on  knowing  the  reason  for  the  war.  It  has 
a  right  to  go  further  and  demand  that  peace  shall 
not  be  broken  until  an  opportunity  has  been  given 
to  ascertain  where  justice  lies;  to  try  mediation 
and  arbitration;  and  to  consider  calmly  whether 
or  not  the  matter  at  issue  requires  the  sacrifice  of 
war.  In  saying  that  the  world  has  a  right  to  in- 
sist upon  this,  we  mean  that  it  is  justified  in  com- 
pelling nations  to  go  to  arbitration  and  state  their 
case  before  they  take  up  arms.  But  in  order  that 
the  compulsion  may  be  effective,  the  method  of  en- 
forcement must  be  certain,  and  sufficient  for  the 
purpose.  In  the  terrible  face  of  war  there  is  no  use 
in  shaking  the  rattle  of  an  unarmed  watchman  or 
in  convening  councils  that  talk  and  will  not  act. .  .  . 
No  single  country  can  enforce  a  Pax  Romano,  on 
the  modern  world ;  to  attempt  it  would  be  to  make 
itself  a  Don  Quixote  in  search  of  perilous  adven- 
tures, to  suffer  defeat  and  become  a  laughing  stock. 
It  can  be  undertaken  only  by  a  league  of  nations 
strong  enough  and  trustworthy  enough  to  overawe 
any  single  state  or  combination  of  states  that  might 
venture  to  disregard  its  law  of  peace  and  war. 
Whether  such  a  league  can  be  formed  or  not,  we  do 
not  know.  The  question  bristles  with  difficulties 
for  statesmen  and  international  lawyers,  which 
there  is  no  use  in  attempting  to  minimise,  and 
which  requires  learning,  skill,  patience  and  good 
will  to  solve.  But  one  thing  we  do  know  — that 
such  a  league  is  not  possible  unless  our  country  is 


APPENDIX  299 

willing  to  join  it ;  nay,  more,  unless,  we  take  a 
prominent  part  in  its  formation.  .  .  .  We  are  faced 
by  the  alternatives  of  standing  aloof  from  the  rest 
of  the  world,  if  we  can,  defending  ourselves  and 
working  out  our  destinies  by  the  strength  of  our 
own  arm,  if  we  must,  a  stranger  and  perchance  an 
Ishmaelite  among  the  nations;  or  of  taking  our 
part,  if  we  may,  in  shaping  with  others  the  prog- 
ress of  mankind  and  helping  with  them  to  bring 
order  and  peace  over  the  earth  as  the  waters  cover 
the  sea." 

PROFESSOR   JOHN   BATES   CLARK,   DIRECTOR   CARNEGIE 
ENDOWMENT  FOR  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE 

"  The  world  demands  a  league  of  some  kind  for 
preserving  peace,  and,  for  the  first  time,  much  of 
the  world  expects  to  get  it.  ...  There  is  a  high- 
way in  sight,  along  which  unfriendly  nations  can 
walk,  if  they  will,  toward  and  finally  to,  the  realm 
of  fraternal  union.  They  must  make  treaties  of 
peace  and  can  make  treaties  of  arbitration.  In  due 
time  they  can  co-operate  in  putting  life  into  the 
institutions  at  The  Hague.  .  .  .  They  can  develop 
and  codify  International  Law.  They  must  resume 
their  economic  activities  and  can  so  direct  them 
that  causes  of  friction  shall  gradually  be  reduced 
and  common  interests  shall  be  magnified.  They 
can  hold  conferences  at  intervals  and  let  them  be- 
come, as  decade  after  decade  shall  pass,  more  fre- 
quent and  influential.  In  the  end,  let  us  pro- 


300  APPENDIX 

foundly  hope,  a  single,  strong  and  binding  League 
of  Nations  can  be  created  with  every  institution 
foreshadowed  by  the  programme  of  our  own  or- 
ganisation, and  others  besides,  all  buttressed  by 
common  interests  and  vitalised  by  community  of 
feeling." 

PROFESSOR  FRANKLIN   H.   GIDDINGS  OF 
COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY 

"  If  war  is  to  cease,  there  must  be  forecasting  in 
a  larger  way  than  would  suffice  to  prepare  one  na- 
tion only  for  defence.  There  must  be  agreeing  ac- 
tion by  many  nations  collectively  strong  enough  to 
restrain  any  power  that  would  break  the  peace  — 
as  the  single  state  is  strong  enough  to  restrain  the 
criminal  individual,  or  the  forces  of  local  insurrec- 
tion. The  strength  of  the  restraining  group  must 
be  more  than  moral;  it  must  be  the  strength  of 
physical  force.  A  League  to  pass  resolutions,  and 
to  offer  advice,  will  not  avail ;  it  must  be  a  league 
to  enforce  peace.  The  preamble  and  the  platform 
which  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  has  adopted, 
state  the  simple,  obvious  conclusions  of  experience. 
Throughout  five  thousand  years  of  recorded  his- 
tory peace,  here  and  there  established,  has  been 
kept,  and  its  area  has  been  widened,  in  one  way 
only.  Individuals  have  combined  their  efforts  to 
suppress  violence  in  the  local  community.  Com- 
munities have  co-operated  to  maintain  the  authori- 
tative state  and  to  preserve  peace  within  its 


APPENDIX  301 

borders.  States  have  formed  leagues  or  confed- 
erations, or  have  otherwise  co-operated,  to  establish 
peace  among  themselves.  Always  peace  has  been 
made  and  kept,  when  made  and  kept  at  all,  by  the 
superior  power  of  superior  numbers  acting  in  unity 
for  the  common  good.  Mindful  of  this  teaching  of 
experience,  we  believe  and  solemnly  urge  that  the 
time  has  come  to  devise  and  to  create  a  working 
union  of  sovereign  nations  to  establish  peace  among 
themselves  and  to  guarantee  it  by  all  known  and 
available  sanctions  at  their  command,  to  the  end 
that  civilisation  may  be  conserved,  and  the  progress 
of  mankind  in  comfort,  enlightenment  and  happi- 
ness may  continue." 


THE  FACTS  IN  THE  HULL  AFFAIR 

"IN  1904  Japan  and  Russia  were  at  war  in  the 
Far  East.  On  October  20,  1904,  the  Baltic  fleet, 
Admiral  Rozhdestvensky,  left  Cape  Skagen  on  its 
trip  to  the  Sea  of  Japan  to  meet  the  enemy.  On 
October  23  steam  fishing  trawlers  put  into  Hull, 
England,  bearing  the  bodies  of  two  men  killed,  six 
wounded  fishermen,  and  bringing  the  report  that  the 
trawler  Crane  was  sunk  and  that- five  other  vessels 
had  suffered  serious  damage.  All  casualties  were 
due  to  firing  by  the  Russian  fleet,  the  earliest  news 
from  which  was  to  the  effect  that  it  had  been  at- 
tacked by  Japanese  torpedo  boats  mingling  with 
the  Hull  trawlers  on  the  Dogger  Bank.  England 
pooh-poohed  the  story,  and  the  national  ire  rose. 
On  October  23,  at  Hull,  inquest  was  held  on  the 
bodies  of  the  dead  fishermen,  and  the  jury's  expres- 
sion of  their  sense  of  the  gravity  of  the  situation 
accurately  reflected  British  public  opinion.  On 
November  2  the  Board  of  Trade  initiated  an  in- 
quiry which  lasted  from  November  16  to  20,  and 
adjourned  sine  die  after  taking  depositions.  Be- 
tween the  time  when  the  Board  of  Trade  inquiry 
was  initiated  and  its  actual  work  The  Hague  Con- 
vention had  doubtless  saved  a  war.  At  the  outset 

302 


APPENDIX  303 

the  Russian  fleet's  act  was  described  as  '  an  unwar- 
rantable action/  an  unspeakable  and  unparalleled 
and  cruel  outrage/  etc.  Yet  not  a  week  had  passed 
since  the  fateful  Sunday  when  Britain  learned  the 
news  until  Premier  Balfour  announced  in  Parlia- 
ment on  October  28  that  the  whole  matter  was  to 
be  referred  to  an  International  Commission  of  In- 
quiry. As  early  as  November  7  the  terms  of  the 
convention  submitting  the  question  were  correctly 
known  to  the  world,  and  within  another  week 
British  passions  had  subsided.  On  November  24, 
1904,  the  convention  was  signed,  its  Article  2  read- 
ing,—  The  Commission  shall  inquire  into  and  re- 
port on  all  the  circumstances  relative  to  the  North 
Sea  incident,  and  particularly  as  to  where  the  re- 
sponsibility lies  and  the  degree  of  blame  attaching 
to  the  subjects  of  the  two  high  contracting  parties, 
or  to  the  subjects  of  other  countries  in  the  event  of 
their  responsibility  being  established  by  the  inquiry. 
"  It  can  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  these  terms  of 
reference  gave  the  commission  jurisdiction  far  be- 
yond the  rendering  of  a  report  of  the  facts,  which 
alone  is  stipulated  by  The  Hague  Convention.  [It 
may  be  pertinent  to  quote  at  this  point  a  note  on 
this  subject  found  in  Mr.  Woolf s  International 
Government  (p.  73)  :  "A  Commission  of  Inquiry  is 
technically  not  arbitration.  As  Mr.  Higgins  points 
out  in  his  book,  The  Hague  Peace  Conferences,  the 
terms  of  reference  to  the  Dogger  Bank  Commission 
were  wider  than  those  contemplated  in  Article  14 


304  APPENDIX 

of  the  Convention  of  1899.  The  Convention  lim- 
ited the  report  of  the  International  Committee  to 
'  a  statement  of  facts.'  The  Dogger  Bank  Commis- 
sion not  only  made  a  statement  of  the  facts  in 
dispute  —  namely  (1)  that  the  firing  was  unjusti- 
fiable; (2)  that  the  Commander  of  the  Fleet  was 
responsible;  and  (3)  that  the  facts  were  '  not  of 
a  nature  to  cast  any  discredit  on  the  humanity '  of 
Russian  officers.  It  is  important  to  remember  that 
the  Commission  was  composed  of  five  naval  officers 
and  two  jurists  (the  latter  being  assessors  without 
votes) ;  it  was  therefore  an  International  Court- 
martial  or  Court  composed  of  experts.  '  It  is 
doubtful/  writes  Sir  Frederick  Pollock,  '  whether 
a  formal  tribunal  of  jurists  and  diplomatists  could 
have  handled  this  delicate  affair  so  well,  if  at  all.'  "] 
Yet  fixing  responsibility  is  not  essentially  a  juridic 
Attribute.  The  convention  of  reference  in  other 
respects  followed  the  provisions  of  The  Hague,  and 
named  Paris  as  the  place  for  sitting.  Admiral 
Dubassov  was  the  Russian  member,  and  Vice-Ad- 
miral  Sir  Lewis  Beaumont  the  British.  By  the 
convention  the  Governments  of  France  and  the 
United  States  were  to  name  two  commissioners, 
the  persons  selected  being  Rear-Admiral  Fournier 
and  Rear-Admiral  Charles  Henry  Davis.  These 
four  chose  the  fifth  and  president,  Admiral  von 
Spaun,  of  Austria, 

"  The  Commission  met  on  December  22,  and  on 
February  26,  1905,  its  report  was  published.     The 


APPENDIX  305 

majority  of  the  commissioners,  the  Kussian  dis- 
senting, found  that,  <  being  of  opinion  that  there 
was  no  torpedo  boat  either  among  the  trawlers  nor 
on  the  spot,  the  fire  opened  by  Admiral  Rozhdest- 
vensky  was  not  justifiable ? ;  that  '  the  responsibil- 
ity for  this  act  and  the  results  of  the  cannonade 
sustained  by  the  fishing  fleet  rests  with  Admiral 
Rozhdestvensky.'  On  March  9  the  Russian  am- 
bassador handed  to  Lord  Lansdowne,  secretary  of 
state  for  foreign  affairs,  the  sum  of  £65,000  as  the 
amount  of  indemnity  due  to  Hull  fishermen.  On 
March  24  the  Board  of  Trade  published  its  report 
on  the  depositions  taken  from  November  16  to  20, 
fixing  the  amount  of  damages  at  £60,000,  so  that 
the  Russian  payment  more  than  covered  the  dam- 
ages."— Denys  P.  Myers  in  a  pamphlet  published 
by  the  World  Peace  Foundation,  November,  1913, 
Vol.  Ill,  No.  1,  Part  1. 


BIBLIOGKAPHY 


SUGGESTED  COLLATERAL  READING 

RECENT  BOOKS  RELATING  TO  PART  I 

Alfred  H.  Fried:     The  Restoration  of  Europe. 

William  I.  Hull :    The  New  Peace  Movement. 

Remain  Rolland:    Above  the  Battle. 

James  M.  Beck :  The  War  and  Humanity,  The  Evi- 
dence in  the  Case. 

Randolph  Bourne  (Ed.)  :  Towards  an  Enduring 
Peace. 

John  Haynes  Holmes:    New  Wars  for  Old. 

Sidney  L.  Gulick :    The  Fight  for  Peace. 

Wm.  E.  Channing:    Discourses  on  War. 

David  Low  Dodge :  War  Inconsistent  with  the  Re- 
ligion of  Christ. 

Charles  E.  Jefferson:  Christianity  and  Interna- 
tional Peace. 

James  Barr:     Christianity  and  War. 

W.  E.  Wilson:     Christ  and  War. 

Adolphe  Berle :     Christianity  and  the  Social  Rage. 

Frederick  Lynch:     The  Challenge. 

George  Lorimer:  Christianity  and  the  Social 
State. 

Hamilton  Mabie:  Ethics  and  the  Larger  Neigh- 
borhood. 

Walter  Rauschenbusch :  Christianity  and  the  So- 
cial Crisis,  Christianising  the  Social  Order,  The 
Social  Principles  of  Jesus. 

Canon  W.  L.  Grane:     The  Passing  of  War. 

309 


310  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

F.  W.  Hirst :    The  Arbiter  in  Council,  The  Political 

Economy  of  War. 

W.  Iforton-Fnllerton:    Problems  of  Power. 
Michael  Anitchkow :     War  and  Labor. 
Charles  P.  Neill :    Interest  of  the  Wage  Earner  in 

the  Peace  Movement. 
Ellen  Key :    War,  Peace  and  the  Future. 
Olive  Schreiner :     Woman  and  Labor. 
Norman  Angell:    The  Great  Illusion,  Arms  and 

Industry. 

Alviii  S.  Johnson:    Commerce  and  War. 
David  Starr  Jordan :    War  and  Waste. 
H.  N.  Brailsford:    The  War  of  Steel  and  Gold, 

G.  Lowes  Dickinson:     The  European  Anarchy. 
Walter  Lippmann:    The  Stakes  of  Diplomacy. 
Herbert  Adams  Gibbons:    The  New  Map  of  Eu- 
rope. 

E.  D.  Morel :    Ten  Tears  of  Secret  Diplomacy. 
Francis  W.  Neilson:    How  Diplomats  Make  War. 
Arthur  Billiard:    The  Diplomacy   of  the   Great 

liar. 
Sir  Thomas  Barclay:    Problems  of  International 

Practice  and  Diplomacy. 
Charles  Ferguson :    The  Great  News. 

RECENT  AETICLES  RELATING  TO  PART  I  * 

Paul  Reinsch:  American  Love  of  Peace  and  Eu- 
ropean Skepticism. 

IMwin  D.  Mead:  The  Churches  Against  War. 
(W.  P.  F.) 

i  W.  P.  F.  =  World  Peace  Foundation. 

A.   A.   I.  C.  =  American  Association  of  International   Con- 
ciliation. 

orced  Peace"  is  a  volurne  which  contains  the  address 
delivered  before  the  First  Annual  Assembly  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  at  Washington,  in  May,  1916. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  311 

David  T.  W.  Rhys:  Religion  as  a  Consolidating 
and  Separating  Influence.  (W.  P.  F.) 

Shatter  Matthews:  What  the  Churches  Have  at 
Stake  in  the  Success  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  ( "  Enforced  Peace  " ) ,  Christianity  and 
World  Peace,  (Proceedings  of  Fourth  Amer- 
ican Peace  Congress,  pp.  366-372). 

Havelock  Ellis:  The  Forces  Warring  Against 
War. 

W.  C.  Deming :  The  Opportunity  and  Duty  of  the 
Press  in  Relation  to  World  Peace.  (A.  A. 
I.C.) 

Samuel  B.  Capen:  Foreign  Missions  and  World 
Peace  (W.  P.  F.),  Churches  and  the  Peace 
Movement  (W.  P.  F.). 

John  Haynes  Holmes :  The  A  ttitude  of  Christians 
as  to  Peace  and  War,  (Kejxri-t  of  American 
Friends  Peace  Conference  for  1902,  pp.  65- 
70). 

Junius  B.  Remensnyder:  The  Church's  Mission  as 
to  War  and  Peace. 

Samuel  Gompers :  American  Labor  and  Construct- 
tive  Settlement  of  the  War,  ( "  Enforced 

Peace")- 
Benjamin  F.   Trueblood:     Women  in  The  Peace 

Movement. 

Jane  Addams :    Women  at  The  Hague. 
Baron  d'Estournelles  de  Constant:    Women  and 

The  Cause  of  Peace. 

Benjamin  F.  Trueblood :    The  Cost  of  War. 
Thomas  E.  Green :     The  Burden  of  the  Nations. 
John  B.  Osborn:    Influence  of  Commerce  in  the 

Promotion  of  International  Peace. 
Henri    Lambert:    The    Ethics    of    International 

Trade. 


312  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

R.  G.  Rhett :  American  Business  and  The  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  ("  Enforced  Peace  "). 

James  B.  Scott:  America  and  The  New  Diplo- 
macy. 

Peace  Propaganda,  Sentimental  and  Otherwise: 
World's  Work,  August,  1915. 

Dangers  of  Pacifism:  North  American  Review, 
July,  1915. 

Democracy  and  Pacifism,  An  Examination  of  Pa- 
cifist Opinion  in  England:  Nation,  May  13, 
1915. 

War  and  the  Interests  of  Labor:  Atlantic 
Monthly,  March,  1914. 

Neutral  Public  Opinion  a  Factor  for  Peace:  Sur- 
vey, September  30,  1916. 

Christianity  and  the  Sword:  North  American  Re- 
view, August,  1916. 

History,  War  and  Women:  Unpopular  Review, 
April,  1916. 

'As  the  World  Lives  On:  Independent,  January  8, 
1917. 

Bankers  As  Peace  Guardians :  World  Today,  Feb- 
ruary, 1914. 


RECENT  BOOKS  RELATING  TO  PART  II 

R.  L.  Bridgman:    World  Organization. 

David  J.  Hill:  World  Organization  as  Affected 
by  the  Nature  of  the  Modern  State. 

Charles  W.  Eliot:    The  Road  Towards  Peace. 

Norman  Angell:  America  and  the  New  World 
State,  The  World's  Highway. 

John  A.  Hobson:  Towards  International  Govern- 
ment. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  313 

David  Starr  Jordan :  The  Ways  to  Lasting  Peace, 
The  Unseen  Empire. 

W.  Evans  Darby:  International  Tribunals  and 
supplement  entitled  Modern  Pacific  Settle- 
ments. 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler:  The  United  States  of 
Europe,  The  International  Mind. 

Paul  Eeinsch :     Public  International  Unions. 

Frederick  Lynch:     What  Makes  a  Nation  Great? 

"  Cosmos  " :     The  Basis  of  a  Durable  Peace. 

Lassa  Oppenheim :    International  Law. 

George  G.  Wilson:  Handbook  of  International 
Law. 

L.  S.  Woolf  and  the  Fabian  Society :  International 
Government. 

A.  T.  Mahan :  The  Influence  of  Sea  Power,  Arma- 
ments and  Arbitration. 

J.  W.  Foster :    Arbitration  and  The  Hague  Court. 

James  Brown  Scott:  The  Court  of  Arbitral  Jus- 
tice. 

William  I.  Hull:  The  Two  Hague  Conferences 
and  Their  Contribution  to  International  Law. 

Andrew  D.  White:    Autobiography. 

Joseph  H.  Choate :     The  Two  Hague  Conferences. 

Pollock :  The  Modern  Law  of  Nations  and  the  Pre- 
vention of  War  (Cambridge  Modern  History, 
Ch.  XII,  703-729). 

James  Try  on:  A  Permanent  Court  of  Interna- 
tional Justice. 

John  Bassett  Moore:  American  Diplomacy;  Its 
Spirit  and  Achievements. 

RECENT  ARTICLES  RELATING  TO  PART  II 

John  Bates  Clark:  Existing  Alliances  and  a 
League  of  Peace  (A.  A.  I.  C.). 


314  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Theodore  Marburg :  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace; 
A  Reply  to  Critics  ("Enforced  Peace/'  pp. 
128-143). 

Francis  W.  Hirst :  The  Logic  of  International  Co- 
operation. 

Benjamin  A.  Trueblood:  A  Periodic  Congress  of 
the  Nations,  Historic  Development  of  the 
Peace  Idea. 

Andrew  Carnegie :  A  League  of  Peace,  Armaments 
and  Their  Results. 

Denys  P.  Myers :  The  Commission  of  Inquiry,  Re- 
vised List  of  Arbitration  Treaties. 

Randolph  Bourne:  Arbitration  and  Interna- 
tional Politics. 

H.  B.  McFarland:  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
World. 

James  Tryon:  The  Proposed  High  Court  of  'Na- 
tions. 

Philander  C.  Knox:    International  Unity. 

Henri  La  Fontaine :  Existing  Elements  of  a  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  of  the  World, 
Internationalism  as  a  Science. 

John  Bassett  Moore:  The  Arbitrations  of  the 
United  States. 

Simeon  E.  Baldwin:  The  New  Era  of  Interna- 
tional Courts. 

George  Grafton  Wilson :  An  International  Court 
of  Justice  the  Next  Step. 

Charles  E.  Jefferson:  The  Nemesis  of  Arma- 
ments. 

David  Starr  Jordan :    Naval  Waste. 

After  the  War?:  World's  Work.  December, 
L015. 

To  Make  the  Peace  Secure:  Nation.  November  2, 
1916. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  315 

Essentials  of  Lasting  Peace:  L.  D.  Brandeis  in 
Harper's  Weekly,  March  13,  1915. 

Road  to  a  Durable  Peace:  E.  A.  Filene  in  Annals 
of  American  Academy,  July,  1916. 

Three  Plans  for  a  Durable  Peace:  Wm.  I.  Hull  in 
Annals  of  American  Academy,  July,  1916. 

Enduring  Peace:  David  Starr  Jordan,  in  Sunset, 
January,  1916. 

Outlines  for  a  Permanent  Peace:  C.  Stewart  in 
Fortnightly,  December,  1915. 

Basis  of  a  Durable  Peace:  J.  H.  McCracken  in 
Annals  of  American  Academy,  July,  1916. 

America  and  World  Peace:  W.  F.  Johnson  in 
North  American,  November,  1916. 

International  Court,  International  Sheriff  and 
World  Peace:  Talcott  Williams  in  Annals  of 
American  Academy,  September,  1915. 

Melting  Pot  and  the  Fires  of  War;  How  the  United 
States  as  an  International  Peace  Forum  May 
Help  Toicard  Permanent  Peace:  E.  A.  Filene 
in  Survey,  March  6,  1915. 

World  Court  and  League  of  Peace:  Theodore  Mar- 
burg in  Annals  of  American  Academy,  Sep- 
tember, 1916. 

Constructive  Mediation;  An  Interpretation  of  the 
Ten  Foremost  Proposals:  George  Nasmyth  in 
Survey,  March  6,  1915. 

Isolation  or  World  Leadership?  America's  Future 
Foreign  Policy:  George  Nasmyth  in  Annals 
of  American  Academy,  July,  1916. 

Force  and  Peace:  Henry  Cabot  Lodge  in  Annals 
of  American  Academy,  July,  1915. 

From  a  Peace  Sceptic:  H.  V.  Tracy  in  the  New 
Republic,  July  26,  1915. 

America's  Need  for  an  Enforced  Peace:    Talcott 


316  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Williams  in  Annals  of  American  Academy, 

July,  1916. 
League  to  Enforce  Peace:    Independent,  June  28, 

1915. 
League  to  Enforce  Peace:    Literary  Digest,  July 

3,  1915. 
League  to  Enforce  Peace:    A.  Lawrence  Lowell  in 

Atlantic  Monthly,  September,  1915. 
League  to  Enforce  Peace:    A.  Lawrence  Lowell  in 

'  World's  Work,  October,  1915. 
President  on  Enforcement  of  Peace:    Independent, 

June  5,  1916. 
President  Wilson's  Peace  Plan:    Literary  Digest, 

June  10,  1916. 
Three  Presidents  on  League  to  Enforce  Peace:    In- 

r/<  pendent,  May  22,  1916. 
Pqace  Problems:    J.  B.  Moore  in  North  American 

Review,  July,  1916. 

How  Would  We  Enforce  World  Peace  f:    Every- 
body's, July,  1916. 
Basis  of  National  Security:    Simon  N.  Patten  in 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy,  July,  1916. 
The  Hague  Peace  System  in  Operation:    James 

Tryon  in  Yale  Law  Review,  1911. 

RECENT  BOOKS  RELATING  TO  PART  III 

Heinrich  von  Treitschke :    Politics. 

F.  von  Bernhardi :     Germany  and  the  Next  War. 

Homer  Lea:     The  Valor  of  Ignorance,  The  Day 

of  the  Saxon. 

IMix  Adler:     The  World  Crisis  and  Its  Meaning. 
John  DC  German  Philosophy  and  Politics. 

Jean  <\t'  1 1  loch :     The  Future  of  War. 
Quglielmo  Ferrero:    Militarism. 
A.  T.  Mahan :     The  Moral  Aspect  of  War. 


BIBLIOGKAPHY  317 

George  W.   Nasmyth:    Social  Progress  and  the 

Darwinian  Theory. 
Vernon  L.  Kellog :    Beyond  War. 
David  Starr  Jordan:    The  Human  Harvest,  War 

and  the  Breed,  The  Unseen  Empire. 
C.  W.  Saleeby :     The  Longest  Cost  of  War. 
John  A.  Hobson :    Imperialism,  The  Psychology  of 

Jingoism,  International  Trade. 
Norman  Angell:     Under  Three  Flags. 
Frederick  Howe :     Why  War? 
Arnold  Toynbee:    Nationality  and  the  War,  The 

New  Europe. 
Bertrand  Russel :    Justice  in  War  Time,  Why  Men 

Fight. 

RECENT  ARTICLES  RELATING  TO  PART  III 

Elihu  Root :     The  Causes  of  War. 

Henri  Lambert:  International  Morality  and  Ex- 
change. 

Viscount  Haldane:  Higher  Nationality,  A  Study 
in  Law  and  Ethics. 

William  Everett:    Patriotism. 

Leo  Tolstoi :     Christianity  and  Patriotism. 

War  and  the  Survival  of  the  Fittest:  I.  W.  Ho- 
werth  in  Scientific  Monthly,  November,  1916. 

Causes  of  War:  I.  W.  Howerth  in  Scientific 
Monthly,  February,  1916. 

War  as  National  Discipline:  O.  H.  Howe  in  Edu- 
cation, September,  1916. 

War  and  Human  Nature:  H.  R.  Marshall  in 
North  American  Review,  February,  1916. 

Does  Preparedness  Mean  Militarism?:  George 
Harvey  in  North  American  Review,  March, 
1916. 

Military    Preparedness    a    Peril    to    Democracy: 


318  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Charles  E.  Jefferson  in  Annals  of  American 
Academy,  July,  1916. 

The  Dream  of  Universal  Peace:     Sydney  Brooks  in 
Harper's  Magazine,  November,  1916. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Achsean  League,  powers  and 
purposes  of,  as  a  federation, 
75. 

Acquisition  of  new  territory,  a 
question  for  submission  to 
Council  of  Conciliation,  125. 

Aggressor  nation,  determina- 
tion of  the,  173-174. 

Alabama  case,  an  example  of 
a  question  involving  na- 
tional honour  or  vital  in- 
terest, submitted  to  arbi- 
tration, 123n. 

Alaskan  Boundary  case,  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration,  123n. 

Alaskan  Fur  Seal  case,  123n. 

Alliances,  offensive  and  defen- 
sive, to  be  supplanted  by 
new  kind  of  league,  131-132. 

Allies,  text  of  reply  of,  to 
President  Wilson's  note, 
274-275. 

Amphictyonic  Council,  con- 
federation of  Greek  repub- 
lics under,  74. 

Anarchy,  of  states  and  of  in- 
dividuals, 129-130. 

Apponyi,  Count,  letters  in  In- 
dependent by,  cited,  125. 

Arbitration,  a  basic  principle 
of  federation,  97;  cases  of 
application  of,  in  interna- 
tional relations,  99-100 ;  na- 
tions not  opposed  in  princi- 
ple to  submitting  questions 
to,  123;  double  significance 
of  the  word,  123-124. 


321 


Arbitrary  authority,  exercise 
of,  as  a  cause  of  war,  117. 

Arenas  of  friction,  what  con- 
stitute, 236-239. 

Armaments,  reduction  of,  a 
question  for  Council  of  Con- 
ciliation, 125;  attitude  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  as 
to,  138-146;  provisions  con- 
cerning, in  programme  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
175-176. 

Armed  force,  as  a  method  of 
intervention  by  league  of 
nations,  136-139. 

Asquith,  Herbert,  endorsement 
by,  of  ideas  of  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  171,  181. 
284-286. 

Atheism,  might-makes-right 
theory  viewed  as,  253. 

Avalanche,  analogy  between 
war  and,  212. 


Backward  peoples,  treatment 
of,  a  question  for  Council 
of  Conciliation,  125;  exploi- 
tation of,  under  imperialis- 
tic system,  236-239. 

Bagehot,  Walter,  on  advan- 
tages of  co-operation,  73; 
cited,  83;  quoted  on  social 
morality,  117-118. 

Balance  of  power,  alliances 
really  not  made  to  preserve, 
151-152. 

Balfour,  Arthur,  endorsement 


INDEX 


by,  of  proposals  of  League 
to  Enforce  Peace,  181,  279- 
280. 

Bernhardi,  on  war  as  a  bio- 
logical necessity,  202. 

Berry,  Sidney  M.,  article  on 
"  Vvar  and  Religion,"  cited, 
18. 

Bethinann-Hollweg,  plan  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace 
praised  by,  181;  text  of 
speech  endorsing  proposals 
of  League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
276-278. 

Bibliography,  selected,  309- 
319. 

Biological  necessity,  argument 
for  war  as  a,  202-204. 

Boycotting  of  outlaw  nations, 
one  method  of  intervention 
by  league  of  nations,  134- 
136. 

Brailsford,  H.  N.,  The  War 
of  Steel  and  Gold,  cited, 
236. 

Bravery  not  a  result  of  war, 
207-208. 

Briaud,  plan  of  League  to  En- 
force Peace  praised  by,  181, 

2m 

British  Labour  Conference, 
proposals  of  League  to  En- 
force Peace  approved  by, 

Brooks,  Sydney,  article  "The 
Dream  of  Universal  Peace," 
cited,  109. 

Bryce,  James,  American  Com- 
monu-(dlth,  cited,  77;  Rela- 
tions of  Advanced  and  Back- 
ward Nations  of  Mankind, 
cited,  125;  in  favour  of 
plan  of  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  181;  text  of  article 
endorsing  plans  of  League 
to  Enforce  Peace,  288- 
290. 

Buffer    states,    neutralisation 


of,  a  question  for  Council 
of  Conciliation,  125. 
Business,  relations  of,  to  war, 
42-43;  effect  of  war  upon, 
43;  a  provocative  of  war 
and  a  hindrance  to  peace, 
47-^8;  interests  of,  behind 
wars,  231-239. 

C 

Cannibalism,  no  longer  con- 
sidered morally  correct, 
214. 

Cassano,  Prince  di,  letters  in 
Independent  by,  cited,  125. 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of 
United  States,  proposals  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  en- 
dorsed by,  292-294. 

Child  labour,  possibility  of 
change  in  customs  and  prac- 
tices shown  by  improvement 
in  conditions  of,  216-218. 

Christianity,  reasons  for  fail- 
ure of,  to  prevent  present 
war,  12ff;  one  reason  lies 
in  the  kind  of,  that  has  been 
found  wanting,  13-15 ;  men's 
attention  directed  by,  to  a 
distant  world  rather  than 
to  present  needs,  15-16;  in- 
efficient methods  of,  as 
shown  by  competition  of  de- 
nominations, 16-17 ;  ac- 
knowledged inpotence  of  the 
kind  commonly  practised, 
to  save  society,  17 ;  steps  to 
be  taken  in  needed  reform 
of,  17-19. 

Civil  War,  not  fought  prima- 
rily to  maintain  sovereignty 
of  the  Union,  79. 

Clark,  John  Bates,  remarks  in 
favour  of  proposals  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace 
quoted,  299-300. 

Class  distinctions,  effect  of 
the  war  on,  30-33. 


INDEX 


323 


Commercial  greed,  as  a  cause 
of  war,  117. 

Commission  of  Inquiry,  appli- 
cation of  idea  of,  in  Wilson- 
Bryan  treaties,  102-104 ; 
created  by  First  Hague 
Convention  in  1899,  111 ;  not 
a  new  idea,  111-112. 

Compromise,  a  fundamental 
principle  of  federation,  95. 

Co-operation,  impetus  given  to, 
by  the  war,  27;  possible 
later  attitude  of  labourers 
regarding,  28 ;  substitution 
of,  between  states,  for  com' 
petition,  71 ;  advantages  and 
necessity  of,  71-74;  exam- 
ples of,  among  states,  74-80. 

Cost  of  war,  43-47. 

Council  of  Conciliation,  char- 
acter of  the  proposed,  109- 
110 ;  a  tentative  step  toward 
an  international  court  for 
settlement  of  political  trou- 
bles, 110-111;  methods  of 
action,  113-114;  legislative 
powers  of,  115,  121-126; 
question  of  what  shall  con- 
stitute a  decision  by,  124; 
questions  which  would  come 
before,  125-126;  distinction 
between  functions  of  Judi- 
cial Tribunal  and  of,  183. 

Croly,  Herbert,  New  Republic 
editorial  quoted,  242n. 

Cruce,  Emeric,  peace  project 
of,  91-92. 

Culture,  failure  of,  as  a  re- 
straining influence  against 
war,  19-20. 

Curzon,  Earl,  endorsement  by, 
of  proposals  of  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  281-282. 

D 

Darby,  W.  E.,  quoted  on  cases 
of  international  arbitra- 
tions, 99n. 


Darwinian  law,  does  not  mean 
that  all  advance  is  through 
combat,  228. 

Democracy,  movement  toward, 
accelerated  by  present  war, 
26 ;  trend  toward,  shown  by 
enforced  co-operation  re- 
sulting from  the  war,  27; 
as  a  preventive  of  war,  164- 
165 ;  not  a  quality  to  be  en- 
forced, 165. 

Democratic  party,  proposals 
of  League  to  Enforce  Peace 
endorsed  in  platform  of, 
291. 

Diplomacy,  the  fault  with,  in 
regard  to  present  war,  49- 
50;  the  true  function  of,  to 
keep  things  running  smooth- 
ly, 50;  reforms  needed  in, 
51-66 ;  real  task  of,  to  study 
causes  of  past  wars,  232; 
the  stakes  of,  236-239. 

Disarmament,  not  included  in 
programme  of  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  175-176. 

Dogger  Banks  Fisheries  case, 
settlement  of,  by  Hague 
Tribunal,  100,  182;  account 
of  settlement  of,  302-305. 

Dollar  diplomacy,  a  provoca- 
tive of  war,  47-48. 


E 


Economic  Boycott,  one  method 
of  intervention  by  league  of 
nations,  134-136. 

Economic  forces,  tracing  of 
wars  to,  231-239. 

Education,  failure  of,  as  an 
influence  against  present 
war,  19-20;  changes  and 
reformations  in,  bound  to 
follow  the  war,  20. 

Efficiency,  war  and,  47. 

Ellis,  Havelock,  The  Task  of 
Social  Hygiene,  quoted,  21. 


821 


INDEX 


Evangelical  Alliance,  move- 
ment toward  Christian  co- 
operation through,  17. 

Expansion,  need  of  room  for, 
a  cause  of  war,  117. 


F 


Fanaticism  and  patriotism, 
245. 

Fatalistic  arguments  for  war, 
refutation  of,  210-230. 

Feasibility  of  programme  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
168-185. 

Federal  Council  of  Churches, 
movement  toward  Christian 
co-operation  through,  17. 

Federalist  papers,  quoted,  74, 
75. 

Federative  principle,  instances 
of  application  of,  among 
states,  74-80;  John  Fiske's 
exposition  of  the,  77n ;  com- 
promise implied  as  a  prin- 
ciple by,  95. 

Feminist  Movement,  effect  of 
the  war  upon,  34-39. 

Ferguson,  Charles,  "The  Eco- 
nomics of  Devotion"  by, 
207;  quoted,  211;  The  Re- 
Uffion  of  Democracy,  quoted, 
224,  231-232;  on  what  lib- 
erty means,  240. 

Filene,  Edward  A.,  address  by, 
cited,  132. 

Financial  interests,  wars 
traceable  to,  231-239. 

Financiers  and  the  war,  42- 
48. 

Fiske,  John,  quoted  on  the 
principle  of  federalism, 
77n. 

Force,  answer  to  objections  to 
proposed  use  of,  to  preserve 
peace,  100-168,  172. 

Foreign  affairs,  need  of  de- 
itlslng,  57-58,  164-165. 


Freedom  of  the  seas,  a  ques- 
tion for  Council  of  Concilia- 
tion, 125. 

Free  trade,  a  question  for 
Council  of  Conciliation, 
125. 

Fried,  Alfred,  outbreak  of  war 
foreseen  by,  6-7. 


Garrison,  Lindley  M.,  objec- 
tion to  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  voiced  by,  156-157. 

Gatling,  Dr.,  miscarriage  of 
theories  of,  158. 

Germany,  a  league  of  states, 
76 ;  why  people  of  naturally 
friendly  disposition  are  hos- 
tile to,  254. 

Giddings,  Franklin  H.,  plans 
of  League  to  Enforce  Peace 
approved  by,  300-301. 

Gladden,  Washington,  The 
Forks  of  the  Road,  cited, 
247. 

Gladiatorial  combats,  no 
longer  morally  fashionable, 
215. 

Gleason,  Arthur,  article  "  The 
Social  Revolution  in  Eng- 
land," cited,  26. 

Gompers,  Samuel,  proposals  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  en- 
dorsed by,  294-296. 

Graham,  Dr.  William,  Report 
by,  cited,  37. 

Greek  republics,  federation  of, 
an  example  of  co-operation 
among  states,  74. 

Greenwood,  Arthur,  work  by, 
cited,  125. 

Grey,  Lord,  endorsement  by, 
of  plans  of  League  to  En- 
force Peace,  181,  287-288. 

Guizot,  quoted  on  require- 
ments of  the  federative  sys- 
tem, 71. 


INDEX 


325 


Gulick,   Sidney  L.,   books  by, 
cited  and  quoted,  126. 


Hague  Congress,  conferences 
proposed  by  League  to  En- 
force Peace  a  continuation 
of,  122;  international  tri- 
bunals set  up  by,  128-129. 

Hague  Convention,  First,  In- 
ternational Commission  of 
Inquiry  created  by,  111- 
112. 

Hague  Tribunal,  international 
disputes  settled  by,  99-100, 
112-113. 

Hall,  G.  Stanley,  paper  on 
"  Psychology  and  War  "  by, 
204. 

Hapgood,  Norman,  quoted,  166. 

Harden,  Maximilian,  quoted 
on  militarism,  189-190. 

Hatred,  false  view  of  patriot- 
ism as,  244. 

Heroism,  not  caused  by  war, 
208. 

Hobbes,  theory  that  warfare 
is  natural  state  of  man,  not 
proved,  247. 

Hobson,  John  A.,  the  "moral 
absolute"  of,  63;  books  by, 
cited,  135,  136,  236. 

Holt,  Hamilton,  quoted  on 
League  of  Peace,  87-88. 

Home  Rule  for  Ireland,  would 
not  fall  within  jurisdiction 
of  League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
182. 

Howe,  Frederick,  Why  War? 
quoted,  231,  236. 

Hughes,  Charles  E.,  reference 
to  speech  by,  290. 

Hugins,  Roland,  The  Possible 
Peace,  cited,  164. 

Hull,  The  Second  Hague  Con- 
ference, cited,  113. 

Hull  affair,  a  case  submitted 


to  arbitration,  100,  182 ;  ac- 
count of,  302-305. 

Human  life,  cost  of  war  in, 
46. 

Human  nature  argument  for 
war,  220-230. 

Hutchins  and  Harrison,  His- 
tory of  Factory  Legislation, 
cited,  217. 


Ibsen,  Ghosts,  quoted,  83. 

Imperial  ambitions  as  a  cause 
of  war,  117. 

Imperialism,  militaristic  ar- 
guments based  on  doctrine 
of,  231-239. 

Inevitability  of  war,  fetich  of, 
210ff. 

Interdependence  among  na- 
tions, 105-109. 

International  Commission, 
provisions  concerning,  in 
Wilson-Bryan  treaties,  102- 
104. 

International  morality,  con- 
temporary, 117-121. 

Intervention  by  league  of  na- 
tions, methods  of,  132-139. 


James,  William,  on  "The 
Moral  Equivalent  of  War," 
196;  cited,  207;  quoted  on 
the  fatalistic  view  of  the 
war  function,  228. 

Japanese  question,  an  example 
of  case  to  be  settled  by  in- 
ternational tribunal,  126- 
127. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  advice  of, 
not  pertinent  to-day,  83-84. 

Jingoism  a  quality  of  false 
patriotism,  245. 

Johnson,  Alvin  S.,  article 
"War  and  the  Interests  of 
Labour,"  cited,  29. 


INDEX 


Jordan,  David  Starr,  The 
Blood  of  the  Nation,  quota- 
tion from,  212. 

Judicial  tribunal,  interna- 
tional, to  be  set  up  by 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
100 ;  difference  between 
functions  of,  and  of  Council 
of  Conciliation,  183. 


Kansas,  settlement  of  dispute 
between  Colorado  and,  by 
Supreme  Court,  101. 

Kennedy,  Charles  Rann,  The 
Terrible  Meek,  cited,  246. 

Key,  Ellen,  quoted  on  senti- 
mental form  of  pacifism, 
9-10. 

Kropotkin,  Peter,  Mutual  Aid 
a  Factor  in  Evolution,  cited, 
229. 


Labour,  plans  of  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  endorsed  by, 
294-296. 

Labour  and  the  war.  See 
Working  classes. 

Ladd,  William,  essay  on  a 
Congress  of  Nations  by,  92. 

Lambert,  Henri,  article  "In- 
ternational Morality  and 
Exchange,"  cited,  232. 

Law,  Bonar,  address  by,  en- 
dorsing proposals  of  League 
to  Enforce  Peace,  281-282. 

Lea,  Homer,  The  Valour  of 
Ignorance,  quoted,  197-198; 
on  true  patriotism,  245n. 

League  of  nations,  forerun- 
ners of  the  proposed,  74-80 ; 
formation  of,  a  natural 
step,  81:  office  of,  82-88; 
early  plans  for  a,  89-92; 
present  time  not  premature 
for  movement  looking  to- 


ward, 92 ;  idea  endorsed  by 
President  Wilson,  92-94 ; 
methods  of  intervention  to 
be  employed  by,  132-139; 
answers  to  questions  of  de- 
sirability of,  150ff. 

League  to  Enforce  Peace,  ac- 
count of  organisation  and 
programme  of,  Preface ; 
President  Wilson's  views 
expressed  in  address  before, 
93-94 ;  International  Judi- 
cial Tribunal  to  be  set  up 
by,  100;  conferences  of  sig- 
natory powers  proposed  by, 
121-122;  restraint  of  war 
by  a  Congress  of  Nations 
the  central  idea  of,  128 ;  at- 
titude on  armaments,  138; 
and  the  problem  of  prepar- 
edness, 139-146 ;  stand 
taken  concerning  efficient 
preparation  for  adequate 
national  defence,  145n ; 
question  of  workability  of 
programme  of,  147ff;  an- 
swers to  criticisms  of  name, 
150-168;  question  of  feasi- 
bility of  programme  of,  168- 
179;  termed  visionary  and 
a  beautiful  dream,  169; 
principles  of  English  Union 
of  Democratic  Control  com- 
pared with  those  of,  174- 
175;  answers  to  three  lead- 
ing arguments  against  pro- 
gramme of,  180-185 ;  text  of 
speeches  and  letters  en- 
dorsing proposals  of,  263- 
301. 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  on  the  moral 
damage  of  war,  198-199. 

Legislation  proposed  by 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
122-126. 

Lippmann,  Walter,  The  Stakes 
of  Diplomacy,  quoted,  236- 
239. 


INDEX 


327 


Lloyd  George,  David,  quoted, 
168n;  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  praised  by,  181,  275. 

Loeb,  Jacques,  refutation  of 
argument  for  war  as  a  bio- 
logical necessity  by,  203- 
204. 

Lowell,  A.  Lawrence,  quoted 
in  favour  of  proposals  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
84n,  297-299. 

Lynch,  Frederick,  article  by, 
cited,  17n. 

Lynchings,  viewed  as  moral 
throwbacks,  215. 


M 


Marburg,  Theodore,  articles 
by,  cited,  125. 

Martens,  Frederic  de,  idea  of 
Commission  of  Inquiry 
credited  to,  llln. 

Martin,  Mrs.  John,  Is  Man- 
kind Advancing?  cited,  223. 

Masefield,  John,  description  of 
war  by,  193-195. 

Materialism,  argument  of,  for 
militaristic  policy,  248 ;  out- 
worn creed  of,  upheld  by 
Germany,  254-255 ;  gospel 
of,  opposed  to  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  255. 

Mental  hook-worm  disease,  a 
characteristic  of  some  sup- 
porters of  militarism,  226. 

Might-makes-right  argument 
in  creed  of  force,  248. 

Militarism,  first  article  in 
creed  of,  that  war  is  de- 
sirable, 189;  what  consti- 
tutes, 189-190;  views  of 
supporters,  quoted,  190- 
193;  war  is  inevitable,  the 
second  article  in  creed  of, 
210 ;  third  article,  that  priv- 
ilege is  an  advantage  (im- 
perialism), 231;  fourth  ar- 


ticle, that  states  are  natural 
enemies,  240;  fifth  article, 
that  might  makes  right,  248. 

Military  force  as  a  method  of 
intervention  by:  league  of 
nations,  136-139. 

Mixed  commissions,  in  nine- 
teenth century,  llln. 

Monroe  Doctrine,  position  of, 
under  programme  of  League 
to  Enforce  Peace,  182-184. 

Montesquieu,  cited  as  to  war 
spirit  in  monarchies  and 
peace  spirit  in  republics, 
165n. 

Moral  damage  of  war,  198- 
200. 

Morals,  fashions  in,  117-118, 
214. 

Moral  suasion,  one  method  of 
intervention  by  league  of 
nations,  132-133. 

Moses,  Mpntrose  J.,  Maurice 
Maeterlinck,  quoted,  114. 

Myer,  F.  W.,  poem  Saint  Paul, 
quoted,  223. 

Myers,  D.  P.,  account  of  Dog- 
ger Bank  affair  by,  302-305. 


N 


Nasmyth,  George,  Social  Prog- 
ress and  the  Darwinian 
Theory,  cited,  228. 

National  distinctions,  fear  of 
effacement  of,  as  a  reason 
for  opposing  League  to  En- 
force Peace,  153. 

Nationality,  part  played  by 
extravagant  ideas  of,  in 
creed  of  militarism,  240ff. 

Nations,  interdependence  of, 
105-109;  league  of,  see 
League  of  nations. 

Neutralisation  of  buffer  states 
and  of  sea  highways,  a 
question  for  Council  of  Con- 
ciliation, 125. 


INDEX 


Nietzsche,  enthusiasm  of,  for 
war,  192-193. 

Nobel,  Alfred,  wrong  reason- 
ing by,  158. 

Non-Intercourse  with  outlaw 
nations,  as  one  method  of 
intervention  by  league  of 
nations,  134. 

Northcliffe,  Lord,  on  effect  of 
the  war  on  national  effi- 
ciency as  opposed  to  class 
distinctions,  33. 

Novicov,  War  and  Its  Alleged 
Benefits,  quoted,  201;  dis- 
tinctions between  varieties 
of  forces  emphasised  by, 
229n. 


Open  door,  a  question  for  sub- 
mission to  proposed  Council 
of  Conciliation,  125. 

Ostracism  of  outlaw  nations, 
as  a  method  of  interven- 
tion, 133-134. 


Pacifism,  derision  of,  upon 
outbreak  of  war,  5-6;  an- 
swers to  charge  of  failure 
brought  against,  6ff;  confu- 
sion of,  with  sentimental- 
ity, 9-11;  must  make  way 
for  new  kind  of  statesman- 
ship, 11. 

Patriotism,  false  doctrines  of, 
a  cause  of  war,  117;  false 
doctrines  of,  in  creed  of 
militarism,  240ff;  need  of 
new  principles  of,  242;  neg- 
ative character  of  old,  posi- 
tive character  of  new,  243; 
falseness  of  notion  of,  as 
hatred,  244;  false  type  of, 
fostered  by  pride,  prejudice, 
envy,  jingoism,  and  fanat- 
icism, 245. 


Peace  Congresses  after  the 
war,  50-51. 

Penn,  "NYilliam,  "  holy  experi- 
ment in  civil  government" 
of,  92. 

Political  parties,  proposals  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  en- 
dorsed by,  291. 

Political  equality  of  women, 
effect  of,  on  war,  40-41. 

Political  status  of  workers,  ef- 
fect of  war  on,  26-33. 

Praises  of  war,  189-193. 

Preparedness,  relation  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  to 
problem  of,  139-146. 

Press,  power  wielded  by  the, 
to  mould  public  opinion,  20- 
21 ;  failure  of,  to  prevent 
present  war,  21-23. 

Pride,  prejudice,  and  patriot- 
ism, 245. 

Psychological  argument  for 
war,  220. 

Psychology  of  war,  204-205. 

Public  opinion,  failure  of  force 
of,  to  prevent  war,  21-23 ; 
hope  placed  in  pressure  of, 
in  the  future,  23;  unorgan- 
ised and  uninstructed  con- 
dition of,  130. 


Questions  suitable  for  settle- 
ment by  international  tri- 
bunals, 125-127. 


R 


Race  discrimination,  a  ques- 
tion for  Council  of  Concilia- 
tion, 125. 

Religion,  reasons  for  impo- 
tence of,  to  prevent  war, 
12-19. 

Renan,  Ernest,  quoted  on  mil- 
itarism, 190-191. 


INDEX 


329 


Republican  party,  ideas  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  en- 
dorsed in  platform  of,  291. 

Root,  Elihu,  endorsement  by, 
of  proposals  of  League  to 
Enforce  Peace,  286. 

Ross,  E.  A.,  Latter  Day  Saints 
and  Sinners,  cited,  210. 

Ruskin,  John,  praise  of  war 
by,  191. 

Russia,  proposals  of  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  endorsed 
by  Foreign  Office  of,  282- 
283. 

S 

St.  Pierre,  Abbe  Castel  de, 
early  peace  project  of,  89- 
91. 

Schiller,  F.  C.  H.,  cited,  79. 

Schools,  needed  reformations 
in,  certain  to  follow  the  war, 
20. 

Schreiner,  Olive,  Woman  and 
Labour,  quoted,  40-41. 

Secrecy  in  diplomacy,  56-57. 

Sentimentality  and  pacifism, 
9-11. 

Ste-shooter  diplomacy  in  pio- 
neer America,  98. 

Slavery,  abolition  of,  cited  to 
show  that  deep-rooted  cus- 
toms can  be  changed,  218- 
219. 

Sleeping-sickness  of  the  brain, 
disease  shown  by  certain 
defenders  of  militaristic 
creed,  226. 

Socialists,  and  the  war,  24- 
.25;  proposals  of  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  endorsed  by, 
in  French  Parliament,  296- 
297. 

Social  morality,  evolution  of, 
117-118,  214. 

Social  ostracism,  one  method 
of  intervention  by  league  of 
nations,  133-134. 


Sovereignty,  false  doctrines 
of,  a  cause  of  war,  117. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  Principles 
of  Sociology,  cited,  140 ;  on 
disadvantages  of  war,  202; 
Data  of  Ethics,  cited,  229. 

Stakes  of  diplomacy,  the,  236- 
239. 

States,  ancient  and  modern 
leagues  of,  74-80;  proposed 
league  of,  a  new  departure 
and  yet  a  logical  step,  81 ; 
office  of  a  league  of,  82-88. 
See  League  of  nations. 

Statesmanship,  new  brand  of, 
needed  after  the  war,  50- 
57. 

Story,  J.  P.,  quoted  on  the  in- 
evitability of  war,  210. 

Stowell,  Ellery  C.,  criticism  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  by, 
169. 

Straus,  Oscar,  article  '*  The 
Rebarbarization  of  the 
World,"  cited,  140. 

Supreme  Court  of  United 
States,  a  tribunal  for  ad- 
judication and  settlement  of 
interstate  matters,  95-96, 
101. 

Switzerland,  application  of 
federative  principle  in,  76- 
77. 

Swope,  H.  B.,  Inside  the  Ger- 
man Empire,  cited,  26. 


Taft,  William  Howard,  quoted 
on  setting-up  of  an  interna- 
tional judicial  tribunal,  101 ; 
article  "  The  League  to  En- 
force Peace  Made  Plain," 
cited,  154;  The  United 
States  and  Peace,  quoted, 
167;  quoted  on  proposals  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
283-284. 


INDEX 


Tina,  Count  endorsement  by, 
of  proposals  of  League  to 
Kn  force  Peace,  278. 

Tolstoy,  principle  of,  of  oppo- 
sition to  use  of  force,  un- 
tenable, 162. 

Treaties,  reliance  placed  upon 
nations'  keepings,  185. 

Treitschke,  Politics,  cited  and 
quoted,  72,  153;  praise  of 
war  by,  191-192;  quoted  on 
the  object  of  government, 
251. 

Trial  by  battle,  settlement  of 
disputes  by,  97-98. 


Union  of  Democratic  Control, 
England,  principles  of  the, 
174-175. 

United  Netherlands,  an  exam- 
ple of  application  of  federa- 
tive principle,  77. 

United  States,  development  of, 
from  a  federation  of  states 
into  a  nation,  77-80;  as  a 
leader  in  a  world  federation, 
83-88;  principles  of  federa- 
tion illustrated  by,  95-99; 
alliance  between  European 
powers  and,  as  an  objec- 
tion to  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  153-158;  effect  of 
programme  of  League  to  En- 
force Peace  upon,  as  regards 
Monroe  Doctrine,  182-184. 


Values  claimed   for   war   by 
apologist*    for    militarism, 

Venezuela  Boundary  case,  ex- 
ample  of    a    question    sub- 
mitted to  arbitration,  li::;n. 
Militarism  the  reli- 
gion of,  253. 


Visionary  quality  attributed 
to  League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
169-171. 

W 

Wallace,  Alfred  Russel,  books 
by,  cited,  223,  247. 

Walsh,  Walter,  on  the  moral 
damage  of  war,  199-200. 

War,  reasons  for  failure  of 
pacifism  to  prevent  the  pres- 
ent, 5-11 ;  why  Christianity 
did  not  prevent,  12-19;  mi- 
potency  of  culture  and  edu- 
cation against,  19-20;  in- 
efficiency of  the  press  and 
public  opinion,  20-23 ;  power 
of  public  opinion  against,  in 
the  future,  23;  failure  of 
labourers  and  Socialists, 
24-26;  effect  of,  on  eco- 
nomic and  political  status 
of  workers,  26-33 ;  reasons 
for  failure  of  women  to  pre- 
vent, 34r-35;  effect  of,  upon 
progress  of  Feminist  Move- 
ment, 35-39:  results  to  be 
foreseen  concerning,  when 
women  attain  political 
equality,  39-41 ;  business 
and,  42ff;  money  cost  of, 
43-45;  other  costs  of,  45- 
47;  diplomacy  and,  49ff; 
programme  to  prevent  in  fu- 
ture, 71ff;  diagnosis  of 
causes  of  war,  116-117; 
common  contemporary  view 
of  the  present,  118-121;  re- 
straint of,  by  a  Congress  of 
Nations,  the  central  idea  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
128;  occasions  when  justi- 
fiable, 168;  what  is  meant 
by  "  making  war,"  172 ; 
praises  sung  of,  189-193; 
real  horrors  of,  193-196; 
values  claimed  for,  198; 


INDEX 


331 


moral  damage  of,  198-200; 
arguments  pro  and  con, 
200-209 ;  supposed  inevi- 
tability of,  according  to 
militarists,  210;  imperialis- 
tic arguments  for,  231-239. 

War  Loans  and  War  Finance, 
cited  on  cost  of  war,  44. 

Wars  that  are  justifiable,  168. 

Washington,  George,  Farewell 
Address  quoted  on  alliances 
with  foreign  nations,  85n. 

Wells,  H.  G.,  article  "As  the 
World  Lives  On,"  cited,  26. 

Williams,  Talcott,  article 
"  Disentangling  Alliances," 
cited,  154. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  The  State, 
cited,  77;  quoted  on  entan- 
gling and  disentangling  al- 
liances, 84-85;  speech  on 
America's  foreign  relations, 
quoted,  86-87;  idea  of  a 
league  of  nation's  endorsed 
by,  92-94;  on  America's 
part  in  world  affairs,  105- 
106;  quoted  on  impossibil- 
ity of  United  States  remain- 
ing neutral  in  any  future 
war,  155n ;  on  democracy  as 
the  best  means  of  preven- 
tion of  war,  165n;  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  endorsed 
by,  181 ;  text  of  address  and 
note  'endorsing  proposals  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
263-274;  message  of,  ap- 
proved by  Socialist  group  in 
French  Parliament,  296-297. 

Wilson-Bryan  treaties,  an  ap- 
plication of  idea  of  a  Com- 


mission of  Inquiry,  101- 
102;  provisions  of,  102-104. 

Women,  reasons  for  failure  of, 
to  preserve  peace,  34-35 ;  re- 
sults of  the  war  on  advance- 
ment of,  35-39;  natural  at- 
titude of,  toward  war,  39; 
effect  foreseen  of  political 
equality  of,  in  doing  away 
with  war,  40-41. 

Woolf,  L.  S.,  Shaw's  introduc- 
tion to  International  Gov- 
ernment by,  quoted,  98-99 ; 
cited,  123;  quoted  in  con- 
nection with  Dogger  Bank 
Commission,  303-304. 

Workability  of  plan  of  League 
to  Enforce  Peace,  147-180; 
answers  to  three  chief  argu- 
ments against,  180-185. 

Working  classes,  failure  of,  to 
prevent  the  war,  24-25 ;  po- 
litical weakness  of,  25-26; 
effect  on,  of  coerced  co- 
operation due  to  the  war, 
27-29 ;  awakening  of,  to  fact 
of  fictitious  value  of  war  to 
themselves,  29;  significance 
of  spreading  revolt  of, 
against  war,  30;  how  the 
war  enhances  value  and 
prestige  of  men  of  the,  32- 
33. 


Zenker,  E.  V.,  definition  of  an- 
archy by,  129. 

Zimmerman,  German  Foreign 
Secretary,  endorses  ideas  of 
League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
283. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America. 


T 


HE  following  pages  contain  advertisements  of  a  few 
of  the  Macmillan  books  on  kindred  subjects. 


The  European  Anarchy 


BY  G.  LOWES  DICKINSON 


Cloth,  ismo,  $1.00. 

Mr.  Dickinson's  book  gives  in  broad  outline  a  just  esti- 
mate of  the  European  concept  of  government  —  what  he 
calls  the  European  Anarchy  —  with  particular  reference 
to  the  underlying  causes  of  the  war  and  the  possibility  of 
a  movement  toward  better  things  in  the  future.  The  key- 
note of  the  discussion  is  Germany,  her  expansion  and  her 
desire  for  future  expansion,  what  was  legitimate  in  it  and 
what  was  disastrous,  the  influence  of  Bismarck,  and  Bis- 
marck's success  in  divorcing  from  the  German  mind,  the 
old,  generous  idealism  of  1848  in  favor  of  a  Machiavel- 
lianism as  far  removed  from  the  real  needs  of  human 
nature  as  any  romanticism  could  be.  Mr.  Dickinson  rec- 
ognizes that  the  fundamental  interests  of  the  European 
nations  demand  a  united  Europe,  and  wherever  he  criti- 
cizes the  past,  it  is  only  with  the  searching  hope  of  recon- 
struction for  the  future. 

"  Few  books  have  been  written  that  equal  this  one  in  breadth  of 
view,  in  judicial  treatment,  and  in  the  wisdom  of  its  remedial  sug- 
gestion."— Argonaut. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publiihers      64-66  Fifth  Avenue      Hew  York 


Nationalism,  War  and  Society 


BY  EDWARD  KREHBIEL,  PH.D. 

Professor  of  Modern  History  in  Leland 
Stanford  Junior  University 

Cloth,  I2mo,  $1.50. 

This  book  is  so  calm  and  unbiased  a  treatment  of  the 
subject  as  to  be  quite  as  acceptable  and  helpful  to  those 
who  are  against  peace  as  to  its  most  ardent  advocates.  It 
can  be  very  satisfactorily  used  as  a  text  in  courses  on  the 
subject  which  are  being  given  so  largely  at  our  colleges 
and  universities,  particularly  during  the  summer  school 
sessions.  The  material  is  divided  into  three  parts :  Part 
I.  Nationalism.  Its  Character,  Fallacies  and  Faults; 
Part  II.  Modern  Political  and  Social  Changes  and  their 
Reaction  on  National  Rivalries;  Part  III.  Progressive 
Forces  which  Seek  to  Overcome  the  Faults  of  National- 
ism and  Establish  an  Order  of  Things  in  Agreement  with 
the  Evolution  of  Society.  An  appendix  gives  a  list  of  the 
Pacifist  publications,  statistics  in  regard  to  the  navy  and 
army  appropriations  of  the  principal  Powers,  and  men- 
tions the  cases  decided  by  the  Permanent  Court. 

"Analyses  the  sentiment  of  nationalism  and  its  consequences, 
sketches  the  history  of  the  peace  idea,  shows  the  difference  between 
the  older  idealistic  and  the  newer  practical  pacifism,  and  devotes 
a  chapter  to  the  effect  of  the  war  on  the  peace  propaganda." — 
New  York  Times. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  York 


The  Restoration  of  Europe 


BY  ALFRED  FRIED 

Cloth,  I2mo,  $1.00. 

A  recent  work  by  the  famous  German  historian,  outlin- 
ing the  simplest  and  most  feasible  plan  ever  formulated 
for  a  Federation  of  Europe.  The  English  translation  is 
by  Lewis  Stiles  Garnett. 

"  One  of  the  most  remarkable,  if  not  the  most  remark- 
able, of  all  the  works  of  a  constructive  tendency  which 
have  emerged  from  the  smoke  and  din  and  horror  of  the 
great  war." —  New  York  Times. 

"As  the  most  logical  exposition  of  the  theory  of  the 
real  pacificist '  The  Restoration  of  Europe '  stands  boldly 
out  of  the  mass  of  literature  that  has  been  put  out  by  that 
party."—  New  York  Herald. 

"  A  clear,  reasonable  and  most  convincing  study  of  the 
great  world  issue."—  Washington  Star. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  York 


What  is  Coming? 

BY  H.  G.  WELLS 


Cloth,  izmo,  $1.59 

This  book  is  a  forecast  of  the  consequences  of  the  war.  The 
profound  psychological  changes,  the  industrial  and  diplomatic 
developments,  the  reorganizations  in  society  which  are  sure  to  fol- 
low so  great  an  upheaval  of  the  established  institutions,  are  sub- 
jects to  which  Mr.  Wells  devotes  his  deep  insight  into  men's  minds 
as  well  as  his  prophetic  ability.  Out  of  the  materials  of  the  past 
and  the  history-making  present,  he  constructs  a  brilliant  and 
persuasive  picture  of  the  future,  as  sure  of  touch  as  his  daring, 
imaginative  essays,  as  full  of  interest  as  his  novels. 

Of  special  interest  are  his  chapters  on  the  United  States,  which 
set  forth  the  belief  that  here  in  the  New  World  there  is  being 
moulded  a  larger  understanding  of  the  kinship  of  nations;  an 
awakening  from  the  great  mistake  that  ideals  are  geographically 
determined ;  that  in  America  there  is  the  foundation  of  a  capacity 
for  just  estimate,  which  will  ultimately  find  its  way  into  the 
handling  and  directing  of  international  affairs.  Out  of  the  chaos 
will  come  a  dominant  peace  alliance,  in  which  the  United  States 
will  take  a  leading  part 

"Wells  speaks  with  remarkable  sureness  and  conviction,  nor 
are  his  prophetic  conclusions,  founded  on  facts,  reasonable  re- 
search and  deep  knowledge  of  human  nature,  to  be  doubted.  The 
voice  of  the  prophet  is  well  tempered  and  moderate,  and  the 
nations  discussed  will  do  well  to  heed." —  Chicago  Herald. 

"  Of  widest  interest  and  consequence  are  Mr.  Wells's  study  and 
discussion  of  those  present  international  tendencies,  nascent  needs 
ana  movements  toward  friendship  out  of  which  will  have  to  grow, 
whose  probable  growth,  indeed,  he  forecasts,  some  sort  of  leaguing 
together  of  the  nations  looking  toward  a  greater  measure  of  peace 
than  the  world  has  heretofore  enjoyed."—  New  York  Times. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers   64-66  Fifth  Avenue   New  York 


Women  at  the  Hague 


BY  JANE  ADDAMS,  EMILY  G.  BALCH  AND 
ALICE  HAMILTON 

Price,  75  cents. 

An  enlightening  account  of  the  International  Congress 
of  Women,  convened  at  The  Hague  in  April,  1915,  and  of 
the  journeys  to  warring  and  neutral  countries  undertaken 
by  two  delegations  from  that  Congress.  Jane  Addams' 
chapter  on  "  The  Revolt  Against  War  "  is  especially  en- 
lightening. 

"  Each  writes  forcefully  from  personal  knowledge  of  conditions, 
and  the  appendices  voice  the  opinions  of  the  Congress,  particulars 
of  its  sessions  and  resolutions  adopted  by  that  body." — Baltimore 
Sun. 

The  Forks  of  the  Road 

BY  DR.  WASHINGTON  GLADDEN 

Price,  Fifty  Cents. 

Awarded  the  prize  offered  by  the  Church  Peace  Union 
for  the  best  essay  on  war  and  peace. 

*'An  inquiry,  calm,  concise,  logical  and  marked  throughout  by 
practical  commonsense,  into  the  reasons  why  war  persists  in  a 
civilization  founded  upon  Christianity,  and  into  the  possibility  of 
such  a  guidanc€  of  thought,  conviction,  and  action  as  would  do 
away  with  armed  conflict."—  New  York  Times. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publiihers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  York 


YP  n, 


130 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


